Sanctuary cities- What are they and why are they controversial?

Photos

Sanctuary cities within the U.S.

see larger image

uploaded by LeahT

Imagine you’re an illegal immigrant living in Chicago.  You cannot obtain a driver’s license without the proper papers, yet you need to drive in order to get to work.  One day, a police officer pulls you over for speeding. While in some cities this offense could result in your deportation, Chicago law prevents police from questioning one’s immigration status. 

Local governments began in the 1980s to declare that their city agencies would not cooperate directly with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now renamed under the Department of Homeland Security), creating “sanctuary cities.”  Chicago adopted its sanctuary city policy in March 1985 with the signing of Executive Order 85-1 by Mayor Harold Washington that stated that city employees and offices will not inquire or provide information about person’s citizenship or status under immigration laws, unless required to do so by law. 

Mayor Daley renewed the city’s commitment to implement “sanctuary” policies with the signing of Executive Order 89-6 on March 29, 2006.

While Evanston has recently joined Chicago as a sanctuary city, many of the suburbs surrounding the Chicago area have not followed suit.  In fact, suburbs such as Carpentersville and Waukegan have adopted policies that actively encourage police to work with immigration officials.  Yet, more than 100 cities and counties nationwide, and three states (Alaska, Maine, and Oregon) currently maintain sanctuary policies.

However, the establishment of sanctuary cities has been one of hot debate.  Proponents of the policies argue that they improve immigrant-police relationships within a community. For example, by reducing fear of deportation, illegal immigrants may be more willing to report criminal activity to the police.  However, opponents disagree, maintaining that police can provide a great benefit to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) as they are in the ideal position to apprehend illegal immigrants.  In fact, they believe that sanctuary laws violate Congress’s exclusive power to regulate and implement immigration policies.  Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 states that “[N]otwithstanding 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.”

Lawsuits are pending that challenge the constitutionality of sanctuary policies.  The courts have generally acknowledged that Congress has the exclusive right to implement immigration policies, yet they have also stated that local governments “may preserve some expectation of privacy.”  While some courts invalidated sanctuary policies, they have not yet been struck down and the establishment of sanctuary cities and “don’t ask, don’t tell” immigration procedures continues.  The fine line between federal and state rights to enforce laws concerning immigration policy has yet to be definitively established and the debate persists.