Debate Desk
Do Sanctuary Cities Make Communities Safer for Everyone Living There?
Sanctuary policies bar local jails from honoring federal detainers; the result is that some released offenders are not handed over for removal.
The claim
Supporters of sanctuary policies say that when immigrants fear that any contact with police leads to deportation, victims and witnesses stop coming forward. Local police, they say, should focus on local crime and leave immigration to the federal government, so communities trust officers and the whole city is safer.
The answer in three points
- Cooperation with federal authorities is one thing and neighborhood policing is another. Sanctuary policies typically refuse to honor requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold a jailed person briefly so that federal agents can take custody. The people at issue are those already arrested for something.
- When a jail releases such a person instead of transferring him, he returns to the street, and some commit further offenses. Victims of those crimes include immigrants themselves.
- The Constitution leaves the states and cities free not to commandeer their officers into federal service, as Printz v. United States (1997) held, but it also leaves Congress free to condition grants and to require information-sharing. Sanctuary jurisdictions are free to choose, and voters are free to judge the choice.
Whatever one thinks of the policy, citizens should ask local officials a direct question: when someone in your jail is wanted by federal immigration authorities for a serious offense, do you hand him over? The answer tells you what the policy does in practice, and your vote can respond.
The numbers
- Printz v. United States (1997) held that the federal government may not compel state officers to administer a federal regulatory program, according to the Supreme Court's opinion.
- Section 1373 of Title 8 of the U.S. Code bars states and localities from restricting communication with federal immigration authorities about a person's status.
- ICE's annual reports record thousands of detainer requests each year, and the agency has published lists of those declined by localities.
What they will say next
"Detainers are not warrants." An administrative detainer is a request, and courts have held that holding someone solely on one can raise Fourth Amendment questions. The solution is a judicial warrant or a law that clarifies authority, and that can be done.
"Fear keeps victims from reporting." The concern is real and local police can reassure victims that they will not be asked about status. That reassurance can coexist with a policy of transferring people who are in custody.
"Federal enforcement is the federal government's job." Yes, and local officials who obstruct it have chosen to oppose the law, not to remain neutral. Neutrality means handing over a person who is already in jail.
"Studies show no crime increase." Studies are contested and measure different things. Even the best of them cannot say how many specific victims would have been spared.
"Local police have limited resources." They do, and that is a reason to focus them on local crime. Handing over a person already in jail for a serious crime takes few resources.