Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:50 am
Time: 1:50 am
Results for sanctuary cities
12 results foundAuthor: Manuel, Kate M. Title: State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: From the Mid-1990s to the Present Summary: States and localities can have significant interest in the manner and extent to which federal officials enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) regarding the exclusion and removal of unauthorized aliens. Some states and localities, concerned that federal enforcement disrupts families and communities, or infringes upon human rights, have adopted 'sanctuary' policies limiting their cooperation in federal efforts. Other states and localities, in contrast, concerned about the costs of providing benefits or services to unauthorized aliens, or such aliens settling in their communities, have adopted measures to deter unauthorized aliens from entering or remaining within their jurisdiction. In some cases, such states or localities have also sued to compel federal officials to enforce the immigration laws, or to compensate them for costs associated with unauthorized migration. This report provides an overview of challenges by states to federal officials' alleged failure to enforce the INA or other provisions of immigration law. It begins by discussing (1) the lawsuits filed by six states in the mid-1990s; (2) Arizona's counterclaims to the federal government's suit to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070; and (3) Mississippi's challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. It then describes the challenge brought by over 25 states or state officials in December 2014 to the Obama Administration's proposal to expand DACA and create a similar program for unauthorized aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident aliens (LPRs) (commonly known as DAPA)." Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Congressional Research Service, 2016. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 10, 2016 at: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43839.pdf Shelf Number: 146677 Keywords: Border SecurityCriminal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary Cities |
Author: Collingwood Research Title: The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Undocumented Immigration Summary: This paper assesses the claim that sanctuary cities - defined as cities that expressly forbid city officials or police departments from inquiring into immigration status - are associated with post-hoc increases in crime. We employ a causal inference matching strategy to compare similarly situated cities where key variables are the same across the cities except the sanctuary status of the city. We find no statistically discernible difference in violent crime rate, rape, or property crime across the cities. Our findings provide evidence that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates, despite narratives to the contrary. The potential benefits of sanctuary cities, such as better incorporation of the undocumented community and cooperation with police, thus have little cost for the cities in question in terms of crime. Details: Riverside, CA: Collingwood Research, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 2, 2017 at: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/shelter_nopols_blind_final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/shelter_nopols_blind_final.pdf Shelf Number: 145231 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrantsImmigration PolicySanctuary CitiesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Stepick, Alex Title: False Promises: The Failure of Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County Summary: This report addresses the impact on Miami-Dade County of the Secure Communities program, currently one of the primary federal immigration enforcement programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). DHS claims that the program prioritizes the removal of convicted criminal aliens who pose a danger to national security or public safety, repeat violators who game the immigration system, those who fail to appear at immigration hearings, and fugitives who have already been ordered removed by an immigration judge. Contrary to these policy goals, we found that 61% of individuals ordered for removal from Miami-Dade County are either low level offenders or not guilty of the crime for which they were arrested. By ICE's standards only 18% of the individuals ordered for removal represent high priority public safety risks, and that number drops to a mere 6% when we apply local standards suggested by Miami-Dade County's Public Defender. Interviews with detainees also reveal that often residents are stopped by police for no apparent reason and subjected to detention and deportation. Secure Communities in Miami-Dade County also has a disproportionately negative impact on Mexicans and Central Americans who constitute a relatively low percentage of the local population but a high percentage of those whom Secure Communities detained and removed. For this report, the Research Institute on Social and Economic Policy (RISEP) of the Center for Labor Research and Studies at Florida International University analyzed twelve months of arrest records, and the detentions and subsequent dispositions of all 1,790 individuals held in Miami-Dade County Corrections' jails for the Secure Communities program. RISEP complemented this analysis with interviews of individual Miami-Dade County residents who were directly affected by Secure Communities and interviews with local government officials in the City of Miami and Miami-Dade County. We also conducted a thorough analysis of DHS and ICE documents that guide Secure Communities. Our analysis of these documents demonstrates that the program is based on internally ambiguous priorities and directives that result in contradictory guidelines. Accordingly, Secure Communities has become a program that in essence removes virtually all undocumented migrants who are identified through Secure Communities, in spite of DHS Secretary Napolitano calling for ICE to use prosecutorial discretion. The program's guidelines bear the signs of a centrally devised policy created without consideration for the complex criminal justice landscapes of the thousands of jurisdictions where the program is implemented. The implications and effects of enforcing Secure Communities are far reaching. It disrupts and tears apart honest and hardworking families and makes Miami-Dade less secure for everyone as it discourages immigrants from cooperating with law enforcement. ICE's detention and deportation of immigrants for minor crimes, ordinary misdemeanors, and non-offense incidents reduces trust of law enforcement. This is especially dangerous in Miami-Dade County where the majority of the population is immigrants and approximately three-fourths are either immigrants themselves or children of immigrants. Miami's Mayor and Police Chief both expressed their belief that the reduced trust that Secure Communities produces will make protecting all communities more difficult - the opposite of what DHS and ICE claim is their goal. When community trust in law enforcement decreases, residents are less likely to report crimes and cooperate with police in the investigation of crimes. When serious crimes do occur, the reduced trust engendered by ICE's Secure Communities program makes it more difficult for local law enforcement to do its job, undermining the security of all county residents. We strongly recommend that Miami-Dade leaders form a broad-based task force to review the impact of Secure Communities. We urge Miami-Dade County residents, elected officials, law enforcement leadership, and representatives of the criminal justice system to carefully and conscientiously evaluate and determine which aspects of this federal program are in the best interests of Miami-Dade County and adjust their cooperation accordingly. The task force should be charged with carefully defining those aspects of Secure Communities that, in fact, help protect public safety and the parts of the program that contradict local law and enforcement policy. This evaluation should include a meticulous cost analysis. Without this knowledge, Secure Communities has the potential for creating long-term damage and problems that will persist long after reform of the country's current federal immigration law. We suggest that Miami-Dade County and its municipalities follow the lead of numerous other state and local governments and not honor ICE detainer requests unless an immigrant has been convicted of a serious crime. Details: Miami, FL; Research Institute on Social & Economic Policy, Center for Labor Research & Studies. Florida International University' Miami: Americans for Immigrant Justice, 2013. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2017 at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=soc_fac Shelf Number: 145258 Keywords: Community PolicingIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyRacial Profiling in Law Enforcement Sanctuary CitiesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Fair Punishment Project Title: The Promise of Sanctuary Cities and the Need for Criminal Justice Reforms in an Era of Mass Deportation Summary: While many officials champion their status as "sanctuary cities" and have taken meaningful steps to protect immigrant communities, sweeping criminal laws in these places leave many immigrants trapped within an arm's reach of deportation. President Trump intends to use local criminal justice systems to deport as many non-citizens as resources will allow. Local officials - mayors, city council members, county commissioners, prosecutors, and the police - now have a critical opportunity to thwart his plans and acknowledge the inextricable link between the deportation pipeline and the criminal justice system, and to finally reform their criminal justice systems. It is already smart policy to stop sending people to jail en masse; localities' punitive policies disproportionately send people of color, including immigrants, to languish in jail or prison. But to make good on their laudable sanctuary goals, local officials must heed the advice of criminal justice reformers, immigration advocates, and their communities, and institute sweeping change. This report is a collaboration between the Fair Punishment Project and the Immigrant Defense Project, with the support of the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Together, we hope that our breadth of experience can help advance the conversation that has already started about the intersection between criminal justice and President Trump's immigration policies. In this report, we first explain the various ways that non-citizens are trapped in the deportation web, starting with arrest. We then offer concrete reform proposals that officials at every level of city and county government can implement. Details: Cambridge, MA: Fair Punishment Project, 2017. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 17, 2017 at: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/fpp-sanctuary-cities-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 145543 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DeportationImmigrantsImmigrationSanctuary CitiesUndocumented Migrants |
Author: Collingwood, Loren Title: Public Opposition to Sanctuary Cities in Texas: Criminal Threat or Latino Threat? Summary: Sanctuary city policies forbid local officials and law enforcement from inquiring into residents' immigration status. Opponents of sanctuary cities, such as President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, and Texas Governor Gregg Abbott, frequently claim that sanctuary policies lead to higher crime rates, despite evidence to the contrary (Gonzalez et al., 2017; Lyons et al., 2013; Wong, 2017). Given this crime narrative, we might expect public opinion about sanctuary cities to be driven primarily by concern of and contextual experience with crime. However, given that sanctuary cities are associated with undocumented immigration, and that undocumented immigration is inextricably linked to Latino - and specifically Mexican - immigration, public opinion on sanctuary cities may instead be driven by experiences with racial and cultural threat embodied by rapid Latino growth. We analyze two polls from Texas, a state where the sanctuary debate is highly salient - not only because of its long border with Mexico, but because its governor has fought against such cities, signing highly controversial legislation. We find that opinion on sanctuary cities is unrelated to respondents' county crime rates but is strongly related to county Latino growth and Latino population size. We find some evidence that sanctuary city opinion is related to individual concerns about both immigration and crime. Overall, beyond partisan and ideological staples, we conclude that opinion on sanctuary cities is driven primarily by racial threat and not by actual crime exposure. Details: Riverside, CA: Collingwood Research, 2017. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 1, 2017 at: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/collingwood_gonzalez_final.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.collingwoodresearch.com/uploads/8/3/6/0/8360930/collingwood_gonzalez_final.pdf Shelf Number: 148666 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary CitiesUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Lasch, Christopher N. Title: Understanding "Sanctuary Cities" Summary: In the wake of Trump's election, a growing number of local jurisdictions around the country have sought to disentangle their criminal justice system from federal immigration enforcement initiatives. These localities have embraced a series of reforms that protect immigrants from deportation when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. In response, President Trump and his administration have labeled these jurisdictions "sanctuary cities" and promised to "end" them by cutting off federal funding. This Article is a collaborative project authored by law professors specializing in the intersection between immigration and criminal law. In it, we set forth the central features of the Trump administration's mass deportation plans and his recently-announced campaign to "crack down" on "sanctuary cities." We then outline the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents from deportation by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Such initiatives include limiting compliance with immigration detainers, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. Finally, we analyze the legal and policy justifications for sanctuary that local jurisdictions have advanced with increasing intensity since Trump's election. These insights have important implications for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump. As a complement to this Article, we have created a public online library of sanctuary policies that includes all the policies cited here and many more we considered in our research. Details: Forthcoming in 58 BOSTON COLLEGE LAW REVIEW (2018). 62p. Source: Internet Resource: UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 17-33 New England Law|Boston Research Paper No. 18-02: Accessed February 6, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3045527 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3045527 Shelf Number: 149009 Keywords: AsylumCrimigrationIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary CitiesUndocumented Immigrants |
Author: Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) Title: Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Summary: Cooperation between federal, state, and local governments is the cornerstone of effective immigration enforcement. State and local law enforcement officers are often the last line of defense against criminal aliens, and are far more likely to encounter illegal aliens during routine job activities than are federal agents. As such, the ability of state and local law enforcement and other government officials to freely cooperate and communicate with federal immigration authorities is not just important - but essential - to the enforcement of our immigration laws. Nonetheless, law enforcement agencies, local governments, and even states across the country are proactively enacting policies and practices to restrict or all together prohibit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Commonly referred to as "sanctuary policies," such ordinances, directives, and practices undermine enforcement of U.S. immigration law by impeding state and local officials, including law enforcement officers, from asking individuals about their immigration status, reporting them to the federal government, or otherwise cooperating with or assisting federal immigration officials. While many of these policies and practices are written, they may be unwritten as well, sometimes making them difficult to discover or verify. Most of the sanctuary policies and practices instituted since FAIR first issued its list of sanctuary jurisdictions in 2013 fall into the "anti-detainer" category. These generally refer to directives that inhibit or restrict the ability of state and local law enforcement to hold criminal aliens for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Some anti-detainer policies even go so far as to prohibit state and local law enforcement from simply notifying ICE that they are about to release a criminal alien back onto the streets or from otherwise assisting federal authorities. Sadly, most anti-detainer policies are put in place by the law enforcement agencies themselves, bullied by the illegal alien lobby into believing they must follow the open borders agenda or risk being sued. While some of the sanctuary policies noted in this report were enacted decades ago - such as the ones in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco - the vast majority have been instituted since President Obama took office in 2009. Of the 300 jurisdictions cited in this report: 239 jurisdictions have sanctuary policies or practices instituted by law enforcement agencies; 23 jurisdictions have sanctuary resolutions; 15 jurisdictions have sanctuary laws or ordinances, including statewide laws in California, Connecticut, and Oregon; 5 jurisdictions have sanctuary executive orders; and 18 jurisdictions either have multiple forms of sanctuary policies or practices in place, or have a policy or practice that simply fit no other classification. Some of these policies or practices were very easy to discover and label. Others required a bit more digging to locate. As such, FAIR used a wide-variety of sources when compiling this list of jurisdictions and evidence. This included primary sources such as the actual resolutions, ordinances, and policy directives, as well as secondary sources such as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Declined Detainer Outcome Report obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies, various academic or congressional reports, and even media coverage. FAIR has found that jurisdictions often justify their sanctuary policies by claiming that illegal aliens will be more likely to report crimes to law enforcement without fear of deportation. However, FAIR knows of no evidence demonstrating that sanctuary policies lead to increased crime reporting among illegal immigrant communities, and law enforcement officers already have the discretion to grant immunity to witnesses and victims of crime. Sanctuary jurisdictions also often lament that immigration is a "federal issue" and therefore they do not have a responsibility to cooperate with federal officials. This argument is belied by the fact that illegal immigration costs state and local governments roughly $84 billion annually - a significant majority of the estimated $113 billion annual price tag of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers. As such, the cost of illegal immigration in terms of government services, education, healthcare, crime, and impact on the labor market are far greater than any benefit that may accrue from a perceived increase in cooperation between illegal alien communities and law enforcement. Our comprehensive (but by no means exhaustive) list of sanctuary jurisdictions appears below. It includes jurisdictions with laws, resolutions, policies, or practices that obstruct cooperation with federal immigration authorities or assistance with federal immigration detainers. FAIR ceased conducting research activities for this report in November 2016; changes have already been made to the policies and practices in some jurisdictions, while additional sanctuary policies and practices have been instituted in others and will be added in the next edition. Indeed, dozens of city and county officials have doubled-down on their jurisdiction's sanctuary policy in the days and weeks following the 2016 election. Details: Washington, DC: FAIR, 2017. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Sanctuary_Policies_Across_America_Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/Sanctuary_Policies_Across_America_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149573 Keywords: Illegal ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicyImmigration ReformSanctuary CitiesUndocumented Citizens |
Author: Gulasekaram, Pratheepan Title: State Anti-Sanctuary and Immigration Localism Summary: A new front in the war against sanctuary cities has emerged. Until recently, the fight against sanctuary cities has largely focused on the federal government's efforts to defund states like California and cities like Chicago and New York for resisting federal immigration enforcement. Thus far, in this federal anti-sanctuary campaign, localities have mainly prevailed on federalism grounds, based in the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering and anti-coercion doctrines. In the past year, however, the battle lines have shifted with the proliferation of state level laws that similarly seek to punish sanctuary cities. States across the country are directly mandating local participation and courts thus far have upheld those state policies. These laws, like Texas' SB 4, prohibit local sanctuary policies and impose severe punishments on the cities and officials that support them. This new state vs. local terrain creates doctrinal, political and normative implications for the future of local government resistance to immigration enforcement, which have thus far been under-theorized in immigration law scholarship. This Article seeks to change that. This Article is the first to focus on this emerging wave of state anti-sanctuary laws. In so doing, it makes four contributions. First, descriptively, the Article documents the upsurge of anti-sanctuary laws that have appeared across the United States, and explains how they differ from prior state enforcement efforts. Second, doctrinally, it argues that the passage of these laws nudges sanctuary cities to unchartered legal territory in immigration law - localism. Under conventional localism principles, state anti-sanctuary laws are in a position to more fully quash local sanctuary policies and effectively conscript local officials into federal immigration enforcement. However, as the Article's third point contends, the draconian structure of state anti-sanctuary laws provides a unique context in which to advance what we call immigration localist claims and protect three distinct interests that concern local governments - structural integrity, accountability and local democracy. Fourth, as a normative matter, the Article contends that immigration localism provides a more accurate descriptive and theoretical account of how current immigration enforcement operates and promotes community engagement on immigration enforcement. Specifically, the reorientation towards localism accounts for the powerful role that cities play in immigration enforcement and decenters the federal government's dominant role in immigration enforcement. To be sure, this Article recognizes that casting our theoretical gaze towards local discretion may end up emboldening the most exclusionary impulses of localities and supporting local anti-sanctuary policies. In the long run, however, local discretion in immigration enforcement is likely to better serve the interests of noncitizens and citizens alike. Details: Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3141293, 2018. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper: Accessed September 12, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3141293 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3141293 Shelf Number: 151503 Keywords: Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Sanctuary CitiesSanctuary Policy Undocumented Immigrants |
Author: Hing, Bill Ong Title: Entering the Trump Ice Age: Contextualizing the New Immigration Enforcement Regime Summary: During the early stages of the Trump ICE age, we seem to be witnessing and experiencing an unparalleled era of immigration enforcement. But is it unparalleled? Didn't we label Barack Obama the "Deporter-in-Chief?" Wasn't it George Bush who used the authority of the Patriot Act to round up nonimmigrants from Muslim and Arab countries and didn't his ICE commonly engage in armed raids a factories and other worksites? Aren't there strong parallels that can be drawn between Trump enforcement plans and actions and those of other eras? What about the fear and hysteria that seems to really be happening in immigrant communities? Is the fear unparalleled? Why is there so much fear? Is the fear justified? Why do things seem different, in spite of rigorous immigration enforcement that has occurred even in recent years? This article begins with a comparison of what the Trump administration has done in terms of immigration enforcement with the enforcement efforts of other administrations. For example, I compare (1) the attempted Muslim travel bans with post-9/11 efforts by George W. Bush and Iranian student roundups by Jimmy Carter, (2) the Border Wall proposal with the Fence Act of 2006 and Operation Gatekeeper in 1994, (3) restarting Secure Communities (fingerprint sharing program) with Obama's enforcement program of the same name, (4) expanding INA S 287(g) agreements with Bush efforts under the same statute, (5) the threat of raids by an ICE deportation army with Bush gun-toting raids, (6) extreme vetting of immigrants and refugees with what already existed under Bush and Obama, (7) threatening to cut off federal funds to sanctuary cities with the prosecution of sanctuary workers in the 1980s, (8) prioritizing "criminal" immigrants with Obama's similar prioritization, and (9) expedited removal in the interior with Bush and Obama expedited removals along the border. Then I turn to the fear and hysteria in immigrant communities that has spread throughout the country. I ask why that fear has occurred and whether the fear has a reasonable basis. I close with a personal reflection on the parallels I have seen and experienced since I began practicing immigration law as a legal services attorney in 1975 and contemplate why enforcement and the resulting fear are different today. Details: California, 2017. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3032662 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: file:///C:/Users/AuthUser/Downloads/SSRN-id3032662.pdf Shelf Number: 151533 Keywords: Customs EnforcementImmigrants and CrimeImmigrationImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary Cities |
Author: Wiebe, Virgil Title: Immigration Federalism in Minnesota: What Does Sanctuary Mean in Practice? Summary: In March 2016, the University of St. Thomas Law Journal gathered scholars from around the country to discuss whether Sanctuary can make communities secure. Our symposium title, "Can Sanctuary Keep Communities Secure?" played on two contrasting approaches to immigration - the notion of Sanctuary, which often stands in tension with legal authority, and Secure Communities, a controversial immigration enforcement program of the Obama Administration designed (but perhaps not implemented as designed) to deport dangerous immigrants. The conception of this paper arose from the desire to open the symposium by framing issues in the context of Minnesota. I asked the question "What is Sanctuary?" and sought answers from the on-the-ground reality of Minnesota's immigrant communities. The paper answers the question at six levels in the state of Minnesota: (1) the home, (2) houses of worship, (3) educational institutions, (4) cities (and other sub-state authorities such as counties), (5) the state, and (6) national/federal level. "Sanctuary" inherently suggests the need for safety and security, and begs other questions, namely, who needs security and sanctuary, who makes up our community and "homeland" and who gets to speak about and build the legal protections that make up a tapestry of safety. At each level, at least one specific policy/legal issue is addressed (e.g. separation ordinances in the city section, driver’s licenses at the state level, and responses to federal enforcement actions) to show how dynamics have played out in Minnesota. I address the dynamics of immigration federalism in Minnesota to assess the state of sanctuary in the land of ten thousand lakes, by identifying institutional and societal actors: the community, the federal government, the state government, regional authorities (most notably sheriffs), city governments, and civil society groups. How individuals inhabit and exercise power within these institutions matters. I conclude that Minnesota is a state of reluctant welcome, and that the forces arrayed for and against immigrants (particularly those of unauthorized status) are in an unsteady balance, with pro-immigrant forces gaining some ground in recent years. The elections of November 2016 at both the state and national levels may mark another shift toward law and order and away from the grace of Sanctuary. Details: S.L., 2017. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2018 at: https://ir.stthomas.edu/ustlj/vol13/iss3/6/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1403&context=ustlj Shelf Number: 151545 Keywords: ImmigrationNational SecuritySanctuary Cities |
Author: Peck, Sarah Herman Title: "Sanctuary" Jurisdictions: Federal, State, and Local Policies and Related Litigation Summary: There is no official or agreed-upon definition of what constitutes a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, and there has been debate as to whether the term applies to particular states and localities. Moreover, state and local jurisdictions have varied reasons for opting not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including reasons not necessarily motivated by disagreement with federal policies, such as concern about potential civil liability or the costs associated with assisting federal efforts. But traditional sanctuary policies are often described as falling under one of three categories. First, so-called "don’t enforce" policies generally bar state or local police from assisting federal immigration authorities. Second, "don't ask" policies generally bar certain state or local officials from inquiring into a person's immigration status. Third, "don't tell" policies typically restrict information sharing between state or local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. One legal question relevant to sanctuary policies is the extent to which states, as sovereign entities, may decline to assist in federal immigration enforcement, and the degree to which the federal government can stop state measures that undermine federal objectives. The Tenth Amendment preserves the states' broad police powers, and states have frequently enacted measures that, directly or indirectly, address aliens residing in their communities. Under the doctrine of preemption-derived from the Supremacy Clause-Congress may displace many state or local laws pertaining to immigration. But not every state or local law touching on immigration matters is necessarily preempted; the measure must interfere with, or be contrary to, federal law to be rendered unenforceable. Further, the anti-commandeering doctrine, rooted in the Constitution's allocation of powers between the federal government and the states, prohibits Congress from forcing state entities to perform regulatory functions on the federal government's behalf, including in the context of immigration. A series of Supreme Court cases inform the boundaries of preemption and the anti-commandeering doctrine, with the Court most recently opining on the issue in Murphy v. NCAA. These dueling federal and state interests are front and center in numerous lawsuits challenging actions taken by the Trump Administration to curb states and localities from implementing sanctuary-type policies. Notably, Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. S 1373-a statute that bars states and localities from prohibiting their employees from sharing with federal immigration authorities certain immigration-related information. The executive order further directs the Attorney General to take "appropriate enforcement action" against jurisdictions that violate Section 1373 or have policies that "prevent or hinder the enforcement of federal law." To implement the executive order, the Department of Justice added new eligibility conditions to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program and grants administered by the Justice Department's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). These conditions tied eligibility to compliance with Section 1373 and other federal immigration priorities, like granting federal authorities access to state and local detention facilities housing aliens and giving immigration authorities notice before releasing from custody an alien wanted for removal. Several lawsuits were filed challenging the constitutionality of the executive order and new grant conditions. So far the courts that have reviewed these challenges-principally contending that the executive order and grant conditions violate the separation of powers and anti-commandeering principles-generally agree that the Trump Administration acted unconstitutionally. For instance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of Section 9(a) against California. Additionally, two separate district courts permanently enjoined the Byrne JAG conditions as applied to Chicago and Philadelphia. In doing so, these courts concluded that the Supreme Court's most recent formulation of the anti-commandeering doctrine in Murphy requires holding Section 1373 unconstitutional. These lawsuits notwithstanding, the courts still recognize the federal government's pervasive, nearly exclusive role in immigration enforcement. This can be seen in the federal government's lawsuit challenging three California measures governing the state's regulation of private and public actors' involvement in immigration enforcement within its border. Although a district court upheld several measures as lawful exercises of the state's police powers, it also struck down some measures as preempted or unlawful under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2019. 43p. Source: Internet Resource: R44795: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190416_R44795_0676c96b77aa4ef33380f9012e22eb0b2128a49e.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20190416_R44795_0676c96b77aa4ef33380f9012e22eb0b2128a49e.pdf Shelf Number: 155564 Keywords: ImmigrantsImmigration EnforcementImmigration PolicySanctuary CitiesSanctuary FacilitiesSanctuary Policies |
Author: Vaughan, Jessica M. Title: MS-13 Resurgence: Immigration Enforcement Needed to Take Back Our Streets Summary: The Trump administration has declared war on MS-13, the notoriously brutal gang based in El Salvador. A similar initiative launched by the Bush administration in 2005 stifled the gang's activity after several years, but the gang has been able to rebuild itself here since 2012. Center researchers reviewed more than 500 cases of MS-13 gang members arrested nationwide since 2012. We conclude that this resurgence represents a very serious threat to public safety in communities where MS-13 has rebuilt itself. The resurgence is directly connected to the illegal arrival and resettlement of more than 300,000 Central American youths and families that has continued unabated for six years, and to a de-prioritization of immigration enforcement in the interior of the country that occurred at the same time. All criminal gangs are a threat to public safety, but MS-13 is a unique problem because of the unusually brutal crimes its members have committed, its success in using intimidation to victimize and control people in its territory, and its focus on recruiting young members, often in schools. Nevertheless, because such a large share of MS-13 members are not citizens, they are especially vulnerable to law enforcement, and many can be removed from the communities they terrorize. Strategic use of immigration enforcement is a necessary element to disrupting and dismantling MS-13 gangs and any other transnational criminal organization operating in our communities. The proliferation of sanctuary policies that interfere with cooperation between state and local law enforcement agencies threatens to hamper efforts to stifle MS-13 activity. The federal government must take steps to clarify how federal law permits such cooperation and also must set up consequences for those jurisdictions and officials who impose sanctuary policies. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2018. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 10, 2019 at: https://cis.org/Report/MS13-Resurgence-Immigration-Enforcement-Needed-Take-Back-Our-Streets Year: 2018 Country: Central America URL: https://cis.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/vaughan-ms-13_1.pdf Shelf Number: 156357 Keywords: El Salvador Gang Members Gang Violence Gangs Illegal Immigration Immigration Enforcement MS-13 Public Safety Sanctuary Cities |