The Republican narrative often depicts cities such as Chicago, New York, and Boston as transgressing the legal boundaries by limiting the interaction between their local law enforcement and federal agents. However, this notion casts a misleading light on the reality. The truth is that these cities are exercising their constitutionally assured rights when they independently determine how they engage with residents. This right is granted under the 10th Amendment, which safeguards the states from being coerced by the federal government into administering its regulatory policies. The precedent has been set by the Supreme Court and lower courts on multiple occasions when evaluating legal disputes over immigration.
Emma Winger, the deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council, provides useful insights into the functioning of sanctuary cities and the misapprehensions surrounding them. She points out that this concept has been explored and implemented by jurisdictions for over a decade. The chief stimulus lies in two significant issues: the anxiety among local law enforcement about creating distrust among immigrant residents, and the decision not to allocate resources towards cooperation that perpetuates this apprehension. The Trump administration’s advent led to an increase in such policies, but they did endure before this era.
The Constitution—specifically the 10th Amendment—serves as the primary safeguard for these sanctuary policies. The amendment restricts the federal government from forcing states to implement federal policies, including those related to immigration. This principle that states reserve the right to decide their level of cooperation with immigration enforcement has been repeatedly echoed by numerous courts, backing the constitutionality of sanctuary policies.
Critiques by Republican legislators against sanctuary cities often focus on the purported hindrance they pose to ICE agents in identifying crime-committing immigrants. However, there is no federal law demanding state cooperation, and any such law would directly violate the 10th Amendment’s provisions. Detainer requests issued by the federal government are purely voluntary, and if they were made mandatory, they would infringe upon the 10th Amendment. Sanctuary city policies only limit voluntary cooperation, which is not prohibited by federal law.
The mayors of Chicago, Denver, Boston, and New York intently advocate that their sanctuary policies enhance the safety of their cities. Regular contact with local law enforcement has made it clear that when immigrant communities view them as an extension of ICE, they become less inclined to cooperate. This lack of cooperation applies to both legal and illegal immigrants. Consequently, this obstructs law enforcement from fulfilling their primary purpose—upholding criminal laws. Greater trust between communities and law enforcement results in more reported crimes and willing witnesses, enhancing the safety of all citizens.
Critics of sanctuary cities often point to specific cases where an immigrant, after being released from custody before ICE could intervene, went on to commit a violent crime. Instances such as the Laken Riley case are used to demonize entire immigrant populations. However, it’s crucial to recognize that the overwhelming majority of undocumented immigrants do not commit criminal acts nor present danger to society. Implementing immigration-enforcement strategies at a local law enforcement level, driven by singular tragic instances, results in misconceptions about the broader context and potential harm.
It’s important to dispel the misrepresented image of sanctuary cities as completely insulated spaces for immigrants. In reality, most sanctuary policies have exceptions, often for individuals with certain criminal convictions. Despite restrictive policies, cooperation with federal immigration authorities does occur. ICE continues to conduct arrests and maintain their presence within these jurisdictions. Mechanisms like automatic fingerprint sharing with ICE remain active, ensuring that ICE can effectively enforce immigration even without explicit cooperation from local law enforcement.
The Department of Justice’s recent lawsuits against Chicago and New York City present a pivotal focus point in the debate surrounding sanctuary policies. The administration asserts that these cities violate the supremacy clause— a claim that does not hold up against the historical interpretation of the clause. Historically, it has been used to limit the power of states and local bodies in enforcing federal immigration law, not to compel their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement practices. The supremacy clause has never mandated cooperation; rather, it has circumscribed the degree of participation that states and local governments have in federal immigration law enforcement.