New York Citys Sanctuary Policy And The Effect Of Such Policies On Public Safety Law Enforcement And Immigration

New York city's "sanctuary" policy and the effect of such policies on public safety, law enforcement, and immigration : hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, One Hundred Eighth Congress, first session, February 27, 2003.

Witnesses: John Feinblatt, Criminal Justice Coord., City of N.Y.; Michael J. Cutler, former Sr. Special Agent, N.Y. District Office, Immigration & Naturalization Service (INS); John Nickell, Officer, Houston Police Dept.; & Leslye E. Orloff, Immigrant Women Program, NOW Legal Defense & Educ. Fund. Materials submitted for the Hearing: Exec. Order 124, City Policy Concerning Aliens, N.Y. City; Gen. Order, Houston Police Dept.; INS Memo; Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee from TX, Ranking Member, Subcomm. on Immigration, Border Security, & Claims, Comm. on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Rep.; & Rep. John Conyers, Jr. from MI, Ranking Member, Comm. on the Judiciary. Charts & tables.

The accidental shooting of Kathryn Steinle in July of 2015 by an undocumented immigrant ignited a firestorm of controversy around sanctuary cities, which are municipalities where officials are prohibited from inquiring into the immigration status of residents. Some decline immigration detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While sanctuary cities have been in existence since the 1980s, the Steinle shooting and the presidency of Donald Trump have brought them renewed attention and raised a number of questions. How have these policies evolved since the 1980s and how has the media framed them? Do sanctuary policies "breed crime" as some have argued, or do they help to politically incorporate immigrant populations? What do Americans think about sanctuary cities, and have their attitudes changed in recent years? How are states addressing the conflict between sanctuary cities and the federal government? In one of the first comprehensive examinations of sanctuary cities, Loren Collingwood and Benjamin Gonzalez O'Brien show that sanctuary policies have no discernible effect on crime rates; rather, anti-sanctuary state laws may undercut communities' trust in law enforcement. Indeed, sanctuary policies do have the potential to better incorporate immigrant populations into the larger city, with both Latino police force representation and Latino voter turnout increasing as a result. Despite this, public opinion on sanctuary cities remains sharply divided and has become intensely partisanized. Looking at public opinion data, media coverage, and the evolution of sanctuary policies from the 1980s to 2010s, the authors show that conservatives have increasingly drawn on anecdotal evidence to link violent crime to the larger debate about undocumented immigration. This has, in turn, provided them an electoral advantage among conservative voters who often see undocumented immigrants as a threat and has led to a push for anti-sanctuary policies in conservative states that effectively preempt local initiatives aimed at immigrant incorporation. Ultimately, this book finds that sanctuary cities provide important protection for immigrants, helping them to become part of the social and political fabric of the United States, with no empirical support for the negative consequences conservatives and anti-immigrant activists so often claim.

In the United States, sanctuary cities are generally defined as sub-federal jurisdictions that refrain from engaging in the enforcement of federal immigration law. Proponents defend sanctuary cities based on the claim that local participation in immigration enforcement compromises trust and cooperation between residents and local law enforcement agencies which is detrimental to public safety. Not surprisingly, many existing studies have treated “sanctuary city” as a binary independent variable tied to sub-federal involvement in immigration enforcement. These studies have no doubt been instrumental to advancing our knowledge of local responses to expanding and intensifying federal immigration enforcement. However, sociological insight into sanctuary cities is likely to benefit from broadening current perspectives and assessing the potential implications sanctuary city policies have for shaping local contexts of reception and facilitating immigrant integration. The emerging interest in the study of sanctuary cities among sociologists has seen very little intersection with relevant bodies of literature on contexts of reception, immigrant assimilation, and citizenship. This dissertation is an in-depth exploration of sanctuary city policies at the municipal level with attention to the intended outcomes associated with sanctuary cities as they pertain to not only public safety and crime, but also immigrant inclusion and participation in civic spaces. Specifically, this study is informed by comprehensive content analyses of legislative text, police documents, and news media from 1979 to 2019, covering 210 sanctuary cities across 41 states. A case study of Seattle is also conducted to provide a closer look at the meanings policy makers, civil servants, and service providers attach to the concept of “sanctuary.” Using 23 semi-structured in-depth interviews, the case study examines the processes by which employees of the City of Seattle and immigrant-serving non-profit organizations widen the boundaries of inclusion and participation for immigrants while simultaneously resisting and operating within the legal framework of hostile federal immigration laws. This dissertation builds upon current understandings of sanctuary cities and introduces new angles for theorizing and conceptualizing sanctuary cities as more than just a place-based designation. The content analyses highlight the different strategies cities adopt to dilute the reach of federal immigration enforcement and policing on vulnerable immigrant populations. While proponents and opponents of sanctuary cities tend to converge around narratives of public safety and crime, the findings from my dissertation suggest that there are additional considerations that inform the development and implementation of sanctuary city policies. Furthermore, policymakers and advocates in cities center decisions in response to federal immigration enforcement priorities around objectives that potentially shape immigrant experiences such as integration, civic engagement, and the practice of citizenship. Supplementary analyses conducted in Seattle provide support for recognizing sanctuary city policies as pro-immigrant policies that are intended to encourage immigrant participation and inclusion in civic spaces, in addition to building trust and cooperation between city officials and residents to promote public safety. Specifically, the Welcoming City resolution in Seattle is analyzed as a framework for developing pro-immigrant policies and practices that facilitate civic engagement, affirm membership, and enable immigrants to practice local citizenship in their daily lives.

Pursuant to § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P. L. 104-193) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, P. L. 104-208), states and localities may not limit their governmental entities or officers from maintaining records regarding a person's immigration status, or bar the exchange of such [...] At the other end of the spectrum, some jurisdictions have been unwilling to assist the federal government in enforcing measures that distinguish between legal and non-legal residents of the community. [...] Although this term is not defined by federal statute or regulation, it has been used by some in reference to "jurisdictions that may have state laws, local ordinances, or departmental policies limiting the role of local law enforcement agencies and officers in the enforcement of immigration laws."5 The very existence of "sanctuary cities" has been the subject of considerable controversy. [...] Opponents of sanctuary policies argue that they encourage illegal immigration and undermine federal enforcement efforts.7 Applicable Law The primary federal restrictions on state and local sanctuary policies are § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, P. L. 104-193)8 and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act o [...] The mayor of the City of New York had issued an Executive Order prohibiting any city officer or employee, in most circumstances, from transmitting information regarding immigration status to federal immigration authorities.13 This Executive Order was in direct conflict with both PRWORA § 434 and IIRIRA § 642.14 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in New York v. United St.

This collection contains a rich and up-to-date mix of specific substantive empirical case studies and theoretically-driven analyses from multiple disciplinary perspectives and is international in scope. This is the first time studies and discussion of sanctuary practices outside the US context (e.g., in the UK, Germany, the Nordic countries and Canada) and of recent developments within the US context (e.g., the New Sanctuary Movement), along with accounts of sanctuary as a mutating set of practices and spaces (e.g., pre-modern and terrorist sanctuary), have been brought together in one collection.