Pros And Cons Of Sanctuary Cities

Sanctuary cities are cities that limit their cooperation with the federal government's effort

to enforce immigration laws . In other words, they harbor illegal immigrants . The idea is that

illegals can go there and will be more willing to report crimes because there is no fear that they

will be deported . In many cases however, this is not what happens . Illegal immigrants that are

also criminals flock to these cities knowing that they cannot be detained because of their

immigration status . This startling trend makes us ask the question, are sanctuary cities doing

more harm than good to OUR country and OUR citizens ?

The sanctuary city movement started in 1985 in California . San Francisco passed an

ordinance declaring it a “City of Refuge

. ” This meant that none of the city funds or resources
could be used to assist the federal government in the immigration enforcement of illegal aliens .
The sanctuary city movement was criminalized under the Reagan administration and is still a
federal offense to this day because it directly and knowingly goes against federal immigration
regulations . There are over 300 cities and jurisdictions that have adopted sanctuary policies . At
this point, there is no federal regulation on sanctuary cities.

It is really just up to the city and

state.

The state of Georgia formally banned sanctuary cities in 2009 and drove home their point

in 2015 when they required cities the certify that they comply with federal immigration agents

and regulations in order to receive state funding. Tennessee also took similar action. Tennessee

state law prohibits the formation of policies that stop the compliance with federal immigration

law. The Tennessee General Assembly also went on to withhold state funding to local

governments that do not comply with federal law. Texas does not formally have any sanctuary

cities by definition. However there are a few cities that do not fully comply with federal

immigration regulations. Texas has passed legislation to rob these local governments of money

in order to discourage such behavior.

On September 30th, 1996 the Clinton administration passed the Illegal Immigration and

Immigrant Responsibility Act ( Protesting U.S.-Mexico Border Policy) . This bill addresses the

relationship between federal, state, and local governments. It also outlines that if an illegal

immigrant commits a crime, no matter how insignificant, it can be grounds for deportation.

In
2007 the Republican party proposed legislation that would make being an undocumented
immigrant a felony. It also would cut fifty percent of the federal funds to sanctuary cities that the
city would normally receive from the Department of Homeland Security. You may ask yourself,
how can this be legal? They are knowingly disobeying the federal government. By definition a
sanctuary city is a city that does not allocate funds to support federal endeavors. The government
cannot tell the cities how to use their money so therefore it is perfectly legal. However it is not
right.
Sanctuary cities are magnets for illegal immigrants that are criminals. They know they
cannot be detained based on their immigration status. They know that there is less of a chance of
being stop by police compared to other cities that check for illegal immigrants therefore they are
able to basically hide in plain site. The increased amount of illegals in these cities creates a
breeding ground for crime.
Kate Steinle, a mother of two, lived in San Francisco and was fatally shot by Jose Inez
Garcia Zarate. Zarate is a Mexican citizen making him an illegal immigrant here in the United
States. However, he was at no risk of being deported living under San Francisco’s sanctuary
policies. Zarate is a homeless immigrant that has a criminal record. This prohibits him from
owning a firearm. He claims he was firing at a sea lion and accidently shot the 32-year-old
Steinle as she walked with her father. The jury of 12 deliberated for 6 days. They gave the
verdict of not guilty for first and second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. However
Zarate was formally charged with the possession of a firearm since he is a convicted felon. He
will be deported because of his charge.
The sanctuary city topic is highly debated for many reasons. Many people feel that they
are almost treasonous. They feel this way because sanctuary cities come into conflict with
federal regulations. In essence they are often times harboring felons that are illegal immigrants
knowingly. This idea raises the question, how are what sanctuary cities doing any different than
an individual harboring a fugitive? It is misdemeanor to harbor fugitives which is punishable up
to a year in prison. Many people do not approve of these so called asylums for illegal
immigrants.
People all across the board, regardless of race and age, do not majorly approve of
sanctuary cities. A 2015 survey of California white, black, Asian, and Latino residents showed
this trend. Only 20.5% of the white population surveyed said that they felt the local authorities
should be able to ignore federal regulations. Black and Asian were tied at 25% for feeling that
this cities should be allowed to ignore federal requests and the Latino population had the highest
approval rating at 35% (Survey of California Residents). These results are not very surprising in
some aspects, however in some ways they are.
The results of the survey are very predictable in the fact that the Mexican Latino
population is the group with the highest approval rating,they are the main the group being
harbored in these cities. Granted there are more than likely illegal Canadian immigrants, among
others, living in asylum. However, the bulk of illegal immigrants are going to be of Mexican or
Latino descent. This is because the United States is so easily accessible for them. Our southern
border is not very advanced and is some places is even non-existent. The illegal immigrants are
able to sneak across the border, sometimes multiple times if they are smuggling goods or
sneaking family members across, and then they flock to asylum where they can not be touched.
What is surprising about the survey is the low approval ratings across the board.

The

overwhelming majority of all groups surveyed did not agree with sanctuary cities and the fact

that they are able to ignore federal regulations. They do not feel that it is right for the local

entities to be able to undermine federal government regulations. If the state and local

governments are able to pick and choose which federal regulations they follow then there is no

point in having any. However, the growth of our nation made it very evident that there needs to

be one central government and several layers of lesser government underneath. This issue has

roots all the way to the debate of federalism versus anti-federalism from two hundred years ago.

Our government is doing all that they can to put a stop to these so-called second chances.

President Trump passed an executive order on January 25th. The executive order authorizes

action, including the withholding of federal funding, against any municipal or state entity that

“violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or... prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law” (Boegel). This

means that any city or local entity that practices sanctuary policies shall not receive

government
funding. The fact that President Trump set this order in place just shows that fact our
representatives in Washington are trying to solve this issue. It is important that the federal
government check the state and local governments. The constitutional principle of checks and
balances is not only from branch to branch but also level to level in our government system. It is
what makes our government work.
Sanctuary cities are breeding crime and lawlessness. Their very foundation is based upon
the idea of undermining the law. They allow convicted felons and illegal immigrants to fly under
the radar and avoid being detained. They are able to walk the streets freely and not be questioned
about their immigration status where in another city they may not. In another city, for example, if
an illegal alien is picked up for petty theft they will be handed over to Immigration and Customs
Enforcement agents to be deported. However if the same illegal immigrant was arrested in a
sanctuary city then that person would go through the legal process according to his or her offense
and then would be set free on the streets. They allow the illegal aliens to stay here in the United
States. Cities should not be allowed to pick and choose which federal laws and regulations they
comply with and they most definitely should not be allowed to harbor illegal immigrants from
other countries.
Works Cited
Boegel, Ellen. "Sanctuary cities draw Trump administration threat." America , 20 Feb. 2017, p. 16+.
Opposing Viewpoints in Context , 04. Accessed 15 Dec. 2017.
Poroy, Denis. "Protesting U.S.-Mexico Border Policy." Government, Politics, and Protest: Essential
Primary Sources , edited by K. Lee Lerner, et al., Gale, 2006, pp. 224-227. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context , Accessed 14 Dec. 2017.
"Survey of California Residents Regarding Sanctuary Cities, 2015." Gale Opposing Viewpoints in
Context , Gale, 2017. Opposing Viewpoints in Context , Accessed 15 Dec. 2017