https://ebookmass.com/product/sanctuary-cities-the-politics-
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
The Principle of Political Hope Loren Goldman
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-principle-of-political-hope-lorengoldman/
ebookmass.com
Sanctuary V. V. James
https://ebookmass.com/product/sanctuary-v-v-james/
ebookmass.com
Syria: The Making and Unmaking of a Refuge State Dawn Chatty
https://ebookmass.com/product/syria-the-making-and-unmaking-of-arefuge-state-dawn-chatty/
ebookmass.com
eTextbook 978-0134128528 Managerial Accounting (5th Edition)
https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-978-0134128528-managerialaccounting-5th-edition/
ebookmass.com
Urban Planning in the Global South 1st ed. Edition Richard De Satgé
https://ebookmass.com/product/urban-planning-in-the-global-south-1sted-edition-richard-de-satge/
ebookmass.com
Theatre Music and Sound at the RSC: Macbeth to Matilda 1st ed. Edition Millie Taylor
https://ebookmass.com/product/theatre-music-and-sound-at-the-rscmacbeth-to-matilda-1st-ed-edition-millie-taylor/
ebookmass.com
Recent Applications of Selected Name Reactions in the Total Synthesis of Alkaloids Majid M. Heravi
https://ebookmass.com/product/recent-applications-of-selected-namereactions-in-the-total-synthesis-of-alkaloids-majid-m-heravi/
ebookmass.com
Artificial Intelligence-based Smart Power Systems 1st Edition Sanjeevikumar Padmanaban
https://ebookmass.com/product/artificial-intelligence-based-smartpower-systems-1st-edition-sanjeevikumar-padmanaban/
ebookmass.com
Corn■ Chemistry and Technology 3rd Edition Sergio O. Serna-Saldivar
https://ebookmass.com/product/corn%ef%bc%9a-chemistry-andtechnology-3rd-edition-sergio-o-serna-saldivar/
ebookmass.com
HTML_FOR_WEB_DEVELOPMENT
https://ebookmass.com/product/html_for_web_development-henry-victor/
ebookmass.com
SanctuaryCities
SanctuaryCities
ThePoliticsofRefuge
LORENCOLLINGWOODAND
BENJAMINGONZALEZO’BRIEN
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©OxfordUniversityPress2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2019948469
ISBN978–0–19–093702–7
PrintedbySheridanBooks,Inc., UnitedStatesofAmerica
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
TheauthorswouldliketodedicatethisbooktoformerAttorneyGeneralJeff Sessions.
Dr.GonzalezO’Brienalsodedicatesthisbooktohismother,whoisand alwayswillbehishero,aswellashisbeautifulwife,Erica,andwonderful daughter,Penelope
Dr.CollingwooddedicatesthisbooktohisstudentsatUCR,manywhohave sharedtheirstoriesofstrugglewithhimandhavehelpedhimbecomea betterperson.
Acknowledgement
Thisbookstartedoutaslittlemorethanatwinkleina(not-so-young)graduate student’seyebackin2009.Thatyear,Dr.GonzalezO’Brienwroteaseminar paperaboutsanctuarycitiesinspiredbyapresentationin2008byDr.Gregory FreelandofCaliforniaLutheranUniversityontheNewSanctuaryMovement. Thispaper,admittedlybad,laydormantforafewyears.Oncetheauthors hadbothgottenjobs(nosmallblessinginthejobmarketofthe2010s)the projectwasrevivedaftertheshootingofKathrynSteinle.Dr.GonzalezO’Brien andDr.Collingwood,alongwithoneofLoren’sgraduatestudents,thedapper StephenOmarEl-Khatib,begancollaboratingonasanctuarycitypaperforthe 2016WesternPoliticalScienceAssociationconference.Thispaper,aftermany, manyrevisions,waspublishedasanarticlein UrbanAffairsReview andfound thatsanctuarypolicywasnotrelatedtocrimerates,despitetherhetoricof theTrumpcampaign,whichhadadoptedoppositiontosanctuarycities(and immigrationmorebroadly)asoneofitsmaintalkingpoints.
Itjustsohappenedthatthearticlebecamepubliclyavailablearoundthetime thattheTrumpadministrationhadbegunitsbattleagainstsanctuarycities throughouttheUnitedStates(thoughtobefair,thisbeganthedayTrump tookoffice).Unbeknownsttothem,conservativemediaoutletslikeFoxand otherswereusingtheirresearchtojustifybanningsanctuarycitiesbasedon amisinterpretationofafiguretheyhadincludedinthepaper.InJuly2017 then–attorneygeneralJeffSessions(2017–2018)gaveaspeechinLasVegas citingtheirresearchasjustificationtoendfederalfundingofsanctuarycities.
Manyoftheauthors’colleaguesandfriendsreachedouttothemtoencouragethemtosettherecordstraight,whichtheydid,penningafewpiecesin the WashingtonPost, TheHill,andotheroutlets.Thefactthattheirresearch generatedsomuchmediaattentionmotivatedthemtoconsiderwritingafull book-lengthmanuscriptcoveringthebroaderpoliticallandscapesurrounding sanctuarycities.Uponfurtherinspection,theauthorsrealizedtherewasnota lotofdata-drivenpoliticalscienceresearchonthetopic.
Thus,inthesummerandfallof2017,theauthors(alongwithother coauthorsforvariouspiecesofthisproject)wentonarampagecollecting dataonvariousaspectsofsanctuarycitypolitics,includingbuildingacorpus ofnewspaperarticlesovertime,statebillintroductions,surveysasking
aboutsanctuarypolicyandsanctuarycities,city-leveloutcomesrelativeto crime,voterturnout,minorityrepresentationonthepoliceforce,countyleveldetainerdata,andeventuallycity-level911-calldata.Inthisprocess,the authorshaveworkedwithmanyotherscholarsandgraduatestudentstowhom theyoweagreatdealofgratitudeandwithwhomtheycontinuetoworkon variousresearchprojectsasofthiswriting.
First,theauthorswouldliketothankStephenOmarEl-Khatib,agraduate studentatUniversityofCalifornia,Riverside(UCR)whoexpendedconsiderableeffortandtimebuildingupsomeofthedatasetsusedinthisbook(and allforfree!).Thisincludesdatarelatedtochapter5,whereweexaminethe relationshipbetweensanctuarycitiesandcrime,andchapter4,whichunpacks thestatelegislativeprocessrelatedtosanctuarycities.
JoeTafoyahelpedtheauthorsingatheringandrecodingpublicopinion dataforchapter3,forwhichhehastheireternalgratitude.Third,Elizabeth HurstandJustinReedyhelpedorchestratethecodingofsanctuarynewspaper articles,whichserveasthebasisofouranalysisinchapter2.Hopefully,the fameandfortunethisshout-outwillbringtoDr.Reedywillallowhimto finallyputsomebooksonhisempty,emptyshelves.Fourth,MarcelRoman didyeoman’sworkcollectingandanalyzing911-calldatainElPaso,Texas, andTucson,Arizona.Lastly,abigthanksisowedtoJourdanJones,aformer studentofDr.GonzalezO’Brienwhohelpedwiththearchivalresearchfor chapter1.
EarlyversionsofpartofthisresearchwerepresentedatWPSA2016in SanDiego.Dr.ChrisTowlerofferedsagecommentsregardingwhatwasthen littlebutaconferencepaper,andhehastheauthors’gratitudeforhelping toshapewhatwouldbecomethatfirst UAR piece.Otherbitsofthiswork werealsopresentedatWPSA,MPSA,PRIEC,andAPSA.Theauthorsthank alldiscussantsandparticipantsfortheirhelpfulfeedback,especially,butnot limitedto,MattBarreto,#Clicks4Kass(KassraOskooii),JasonMorín,Vanessa Tyson,andJaneJunn.
AveryspecialthanksgoesouttoKarthickRamakrishnan,whoencouraged Dr.GonzalezO’Brientopursuethisprojectbackin2009;JenniferMerollaand FranciscoPedrazaatUCR;TomWongatUCSD;andAllanColbernatASU. TheauthorswouldalsoliketothankAlexandraFilindraatUICandHannah WalkeratRutgersforprovidinggreatfeedbackontwoofourchapters.
TheauthorswouldalsoliketothankPhilWolginandTomJawetzatthe CenterforAmericanProgressforprovidinggeneralpublicrelationssupport andthenforinvitingthemtoparticipateinaconveningonsanctuarycitiesin thesummerof2018.Thisprovidedaddedmotivationtocompletetheproject.
AnotherthankstothefolksatPerryWorldHouseatUniversityof Pennsylvaniaforinvitingusouttoasanctuarycitysummitheldinthefall of2018.
TheauthorsalsoowetheirgratitudetotheUniversidadNacionalAutónoma deMéxico’sCenterforResearchonNorthAmericaforinvitingthemoutto aFebruary2019conferenceinMexicoCityrelatedtosanctuarycitiesand immigration.
Dr.CollingwoodwouldliketosaythankstoSarahDreier,whohasbeen thereforhiminmorewaysthanhedeserves.Healsowishestothankhismany co-authorsovertheyears.
Dr.GonzalezO’Brienwouldliketosendhisloveouttoallhisnonacademic friends,whohelpkeephimsaneinthewackyworldofacademia.Benjamin alsoowesadebtofgratitudetoKenDeBevoise,whonotonlyhelpedinspire himtopursueaPh.D.butalsotobeabetterteacher.Hisclassesremainthe goldstandardthanDr.GonzalezO’Brienhopestoonedayliveupto.Aspecial thanks,asalways,goesouttohisamazingwife,EricaO’Brien,whohashelped himpursuehisdreamsandstoodbyhimsincetheyfirstmetwaybackin1999.
Dr.GonzalezO’Brien’sadorablelittlegirl,Penelope,alsoremindshimdailyof whyworklikethisissoimportant.Hopefullythroughhisteaching,research, and2032presidentialrunhecanleaveheraslightlybettercountry.Ifnot,he’ll makesureshealwaysknowhelovesherandthatshecanchangetheworld.He’d alsoliketothankhisdog,Maggie,forallthesnugglesandemotionalsupport, thestaffandfacultyatHighlineCollegewherehehadhisfirst“real”job,aswell asthestaffandfacultyatSanDiegoStateUniversity,whowelcomedhiminto theirdepartmentin2018.Hehopesthisdedicationgetshimonestepcloserto tenure.
Finally,theauthorswouldliketothanktheireditorAngelaChnapkoatOUP forprovidingexcellentguidanceandmeetingwiththeminpersononseveral occasions.Sheprovidedcrucialguidanceinthedevelopmentofthisproject, andtheycannotthankherenough!
ListofFigures
1Dailycount,retweetcount,andfavoritecountofTrumptweetsrelated toimmigration.Atweetisconsideredtobeaboutimmigrationifoneof thefollowingtermsisincludedinthetweet:steinle,sanctuary,illegals, immigration,border. 3
1.1NationwidesanctuarysitesasofJune1987. 22
1.2NationwidesanctuarysitesasofJune1987. 24
1.3NationwidesanctuaryreligioussitesasofJune1987.Themovement’s strength,intermsofnumberofchurchesclaimingsanctuarystatus,was deepestinCalifornia,particularlyintheBayAreaandinLosAngeles. However,supportexistedalongtheWestCoast,theMidwest,and throughouttheNortheastandMid-Atlantic. 25
1.4HerbertResearch-NewsKing1090poll,January12,1984. 29
2.1Newspapermediacoverageofsanctuarycitiesbetween1980and2017.48
2.2Partisanframinginsanctuarynewspapercoverage,1980–2017. 58
2.3Broadcasttelevisiontranscriptscoveringsanctuarycityissuesbetween 1984and2017. 62
3.1Newscoverageofsanctuarycitiesfrom2010to2017. 74
3.2Simulationspredictingsupportforsanctuarycities,marginaleffectof partyidentificationin2015versus2017,California,basedoffresults fromTable3.1. 82
3.3Simulationspredictingsupportforsanctuarycities,marginaleffect ofwhiteversusLatinoidentificationin2015versus2017,California.83
3.4Simulationspredictingsupportforsanctuarycities,marginaleffect ofpartyidentificationin2015versus2017,Texas,basedoffofresults fromTable3.2. 86
3.5Simulationspredictingsupportforsanctuarycities,marginaleffect ofwhiteversusLatinoidentificationin2015versus2017,Texas. 87
3.6Simulationspredictingsupportforsanctuarycities,basedonfour county-levelpredictors:Latinogrowth,Latinopopulationsize,murder ratechange,totalcrimeratechange.ModelscontrolforpartyID, ideology,education,race/ethnicity,gender,age,income,andsurvey house.DV:Thinkingaboutyourownview,doyousupportoroppose “sanctuarycities”?
3.7Simulationspredictingsupportforsanctuarycities.Modelscontrolfor partyID,ideology,education,race/ethnicity,gender,age,income,and surveyhouse.DV:Thinkingaboutyourownview,doyousupportor oppose“sanctuarycities”? 92
4.1Frequencyofbillintroductionsrelatedtosanctuarycities/movements overtime. 96
4.2Frequencyofanti-sanctuarycitybilllegislationthatreferencescrime.103
4.3DistributionofantisanctuarylegislationacrosstheU.S.states,2017.105
4.4DistributionofprosanctuarylegislationacrosstheU.S.states,2017.106
4.5Standardizedpredictorsofanti-sanctuarycitybillintroductionswithin U.S.statelegislatures,2017. 109
4.6Standardizedpredictorsofprosanctuarycitybillintroductions withinU.S.statelegislatures,2017. 110
4.7BillsmostrelatedtoALEC-sponsoredmodellegislation“NoSanctuary ofIllegalImmigrantsAct.” 115
4.8BillsmostrelatedtoALEC-sponsoredmodellegislation“NoSanctuary ofIllegalImmigrantsAct,”introducedin2017. 116
5.1Thegeographicaldistributionofsanctuarycitiesinourdatasetreveals thatmostcitiesareclusteredinspecificregions,includingtheNortheast toMid-Atlanticcorridor,aroundtheGreatLakes,andalongtheWest Coast. 128
5.2City-levelviolentcrimepre/postpassageofpost-9/11sanctuarypolicy. Dotsindicateanannualdecrease(leftof0)orincrease(rightof0)in crimeratespost-passagesanctuarypolicyenforcement. 130
5.3Thegeographicaldistributionofsanctuarycitieswithindicationasto thechangeinrateofviolentcrime(percity)afterpassingsanctuarycity legislation. 131
5.4EstimatedeffectsofSB-4’senactmenton911dailycallcountinElPaso, Texas. 143
5.5EstimatedeffectsofSB-4’senactmenton911dailycallcountinTucson, Arizona. 144
5.6Latinovoterturnoutincreaseasaresultofsanctuarycitystatuschange.148
5.7Latinopoliceforcerepresentationincreaseasaresultofsanctuarycity statuschange. 149
3.1PredictorsofpublicopiniononsanctuarycitiesinCalifornia,2015–2017 PooledModel.DV:“Doyoubelievethatlocalauthoritiesshouldbeable toignoreafederalrequesttoholdanillegalimmigrantwhohasbeen detained?Yes,localauthoritiesshouldbeabletoignorethesefederal requests(1).No,localauthoritiesshouldnotbeabletoignorethese federalrequests(0).”
3.2PredictorsofpublicopiniononsanctuarycitiesinTexas, 2015–2017PooledModel.“Inso-called‘sanctuarycities,’locallaw enforcementofficialsdonotactivelyenforcesomefederalimmigration laws.Doyouapprove(1)ordisapprove(0)ofcitygovernmentsthat choosenottoenforcesomeimmigrationlaws?” 85
3.3DV:Doyousupportoroppose“sanctuarycities”? 89
4.1Predictorsofcountofsanctuarycitybillintroductioninstate legislatures,2017. 108
5.1Regressionanalysispost-match,modelingviolentcrimeforyear2012.133
5.2Interruptedtimeseriesmodels.Outcomevariable=Crime;Independent variable=ChangeinICEdetainerpolicy.SantaClara,LosAngeles, Queens,Alameda,andSanDiegoCounties.
137
5.3Interruptedtimeseriesmodels.Outcomevariable=Crime;Independent variable=ChangeinICEdetainerpolicy.SantaClara,LosAngeles, Queens,Alameda,andSanDiegoCounties.Includeslaggeddependent variable. 139
A.1PredictorsofpublicopiniononsanctuarycitiesinCalifornia,2015–2017 PooledModel(IdenticalDV):“Doyoubelievethatlocalauthorities shouldbeabletoignoreafederalrequesttoholdanillegalimmigrant whohasbeendetained?Yes,localauthoritiesshouldbeabletoignore thesefederalrequests(1).No,localauthoritiesshouldnotbeableto ignorethesefederalrequests(0).” 162
B.1Predictorsofcountofsanctuarycitybillintroductioninstate legislatures,2017.(Poissonmodel) 164
B.2SummaryStatistics.
C.1Listofsanctuarycitiesbystateandyear.
C.2Variables,datatype,andcoding.
C.3Prematch:Examplecovariatebalancetable.
C.4Postmatch:Examplecovariatebalancetable.
170
C.5InterruptedARIMAtimeseriesmodels.Outcomevariable=Crime; Independentvariable=ChangeinICEdetainerpolicy.SantaClara,Los Angeles(CA)andQueens(NY)Counties. 171
C.6InterruptedARIMAtimeseriesmodels.Outcomevariable=Crime; Independentvariable=ChangeinICEdetainerpolicy.Alamedaand SanDiegoCounties. 173
C.7Differenceindifferenceregressionestimatingcausalrelationship betweensanctuarystatus(treatment)andLatinovoterregistration. (Robustclusteredstandarderrors).
C.8Differenceindifferenceregressionestimatingcausalrelationship betweensanctuarystatus(treatment)andLatinopoliceforce representation.(Robustclusteredstandarderrors).
174
174
Introduction
OnJuly1,2015,KathrynSteinlewasshotandkilledbyJoseInesGarciaZarate, anundocumentedimmigrant,inSanFrancisco.Priortotheshooting,Garcia Zaratehadbeentakenintocustodyonamarijuanapossessioncharge,which waslaterdismissed,butthecityhaddeclinedtohonoranImmigrationand CustomsEnforcement(ICE)detainerrequesttoholdhimuntilICEcouldtake himintotheircustodybasedonthecity’ssanctuarypolicy.GarciaZaratewas laterfoundnotguiltyofmurderintheSteinleshooting,butmanyblamedhis release,despitetherequestbyICE,asthereasonforSteinle’sdeath.WhileSan Franciscohadbeenasanctuarycitysince1989,policiesthatminimizecity cooperationwithICEhadlongflownundertheradaroftheAmericanpublic untiltheSteinleshooting.
Then–presidentialcandidateDonaldTrumpexploitedtheshooting,making oppositiontosanctuarycitiesacentralpartofhis2016campaign.Duringthe lastmonthsofthepresidentialcontest,Trumproutinelybroughtuptheissue ofsanctuarycitiesasameansofburnishinghisanti-immigrantandAmericafirstcredentials.InaspeechinCharlotte,NorthCarolina,onAugust18,2016, Trumpstated,
I’veembracedthecryingparentswho’velosttheirchildrentoviolence spillingacrossourborder.ParentslikeLauraWilkersonandMichelleRoot andSabineDurdenandJamielShawwhosechildrenwerekilledbyillegal immigrants.Myopponentsupportssanctuarycities.Butwherewasthe SanctuaryforKateSteinle?Wherewasthesanctuaryforthechildrenof Laura,Michelle,Sabine,andJamiel?Wherewasthesanctuaryforeveryother parentwhohassufferedsohorribly?Thesemomsanddadsdon’tgetalotof considerationfromourpoliticians.Theycertainlydon’tgetapologies.They’ll neverevengetthetimeofdayfromHillaryClinton.Buttheywillalwayscome firsttome.Listenclosely:wewilldeliverjusticeforalloftheseAmerican families.Wewillcreateasystemofimmigrationthatmakesusallproud.
InaPhoenix,August31,2016,campaignspeech,afterenumeratingthe deathsofotherAmericanskilledbyundocumentedimmigrants,Trumponce againreferencedKathrynSteinle:“AnothervictimisKateSteinle.Gunned
downinthesanctuarycityofSanFrancisco,byanillegalimmigrant,deported fiveprevioustimes.Andtheyknewhewasnogood.”
Asthecampaignreacheditsconclusion,Trumpstatedhewouldcancelall fundingtosanctuarycitiesonceelected.Forexample,inaNovember7,2016, speechinRaleigh,NorthCarolina,Trumpnoted,“Hillarysupportstotally openborders.Theregoesyourcountry.Andstronglysupportssanctuarycities likeSanFranciscowhereKateSteinlewasmurderedviolentlybyanillegal immigrantdeportedatleastfivetimes.Wewillcancelallfederalfunding tosanctuarycities.”Intotal,Trumpcoveredtheimmigrationpolicyarea insomeformoranotherinabout77percentofhispresidentialcampaign speeches,withsanctuarycitiesspecificallymentionedinabout26percent ofthesespeeches.Clearly,Trumpmadetheconnectionbetweencrimeand immigrationgenerally,andsanctuarycitiesspecifically,thecentralthemeof hiscampaign.
Thus,Trump’sattackonsanctuarycitiescanbeconceptualizedasan attackonprogressiveandwelcomingimmigrationpolicymoregenerally. Byusingimmigrationtoprimetheclassicdynamicofus(Americans)versus them(foreigners),Trumpstampedhimselfasthelaw-and-ordercandidate— reminiscentoftheNixonera.AndwhileTrumpdidnotmentionsanctuary citiesalotinhis2015–2016tweets,Figure1revealsthatTrump’sdaily immigration-relatedtweetcountwashighestonthedayofSteinle’skilling.1
Inotherwords,beyondTrump’sinitialcampaignspeechdenouncing undocumentedMexicanimmigrants,Trump’sresponsetotheSteinlekilling helpedestablishhimas the anti-immigrantcandidateintheGOPpresidential primary.Trump’sstrongandearlyanti-immigrantstanceswerecriticaltohis successintheGOPprimary.ResearchbyNewmanetal.(2018)showsthat Trump’sRepublicanprimarysupportrosemostrapidlyinareasundergoing rapidLatinogrowthspecificallyinresponsetoTrump’srepeatedantiimmigrantstatements.Asthecampaignprogressed,andTrumprepeatedly doubleddownonhisanti-immigrantstances,hisanti-immigranttweets garneredincreasedattentionintheformsofretweetsandfavorites(seetoprightandbottom-leftpanelsinFigure1).Whetherwelookatspeeches,tweets, oranyothercampaigncommunication,theevidenceisclearthatTrump usedsanctuarycityoppositionasavenueforburnishinghisanti-immigrant credentialsandthatthispaidoffpolitically.
Trumpcontinuedtoattacksanctuarycitiesonceinoffice,claimingthey “breedcrime”andissuinganexecutiveordertostripgrantfundingfrom citiesthatpassedthesepolicies.2GOPcandidatesforgovernorinVirginia,3 Florida,⁴andacongressionalspecialelectioninPennsylvania⁵havesince
Figure1 Dailycount,retweetcount,andfavoritecountofTrumptweetsrelated toimmigration.Atweetisconsideredtobeaboutimmigrationifoneofthe followingtermsisincludedinthetweet:steinle,sanctuary,illegals,immigration, border.
campaignedontheissue.TheTrumpadministration’saggressiveenforcement operationsgeneratedabacklash,withCaliforniagoingsofarastodeclareitself asanctuarystateandtothreatenfinestoprivateemployersthatallowICEto accessnonpublicareaswithoutawarrant.⁶Takenintotal,sanctuarycitiesare nowamajorissueinAmericanpolitics—anissuethathasheretoforereceived relativelyminimalattentioninthescholarlyliterature.
Buttounderstandsanctuarypoliticstodayinordertoconceiveofwherewe mightbegoinginthefuture,wemustgroundouranalysisinthehistoryofhow thesepoliciescametopass.Sanctuarypolicies,whichlimitlocalcooperation infederalimmigrationenforcementtovaryingdegrees,drawtheirnamefrom theSanctuaryMovement,afaith-basedcampaignestablishedtoofferCentral Americanrefugeesprotectionfromfederalimmigrationofficersinthe1980s. TheSanctuaryMovementdevelopedinresponsetothedenialofasylumto individualsfleeingpoliticalviolenceinElSalvadorandGuatemala.Between
1980and1985,2.6percentofSalvadoranand0.8percentofGuatemalan asylum-seekerswereofferedasylum,comparedto23.3percentforallother nationalities.SomeobserversarguedthatSalvadoransandGuatemalanswere deniedrefugeestatusbecauseofU.S.supportfortheregimesresponsiblefor theviolencetheywerefleeing(Ridgley,2008).
Thisdenialofsaferefugeledanumberoffaith-basedgroupstooffer aidtorefugeesintheformofshelterinchurchesandsynagogues—directly floutingantiharboringlaws.Theconceptofsanctuaryisrootedinreligious traditiontracingitsrootstofifth-centuryRomanlaw,butmembersofthe SanctuaryMovementalsoarguedthattheireffortsweresupportedbythe GenevaConventionsandtheUnitedStates’ownRefugeeActof1980.Atits height,anestimatedtwentythousandtothirtythousandchurchmembersand morethanonehundredchurchesandsynagoguesacrosstheUnitedStates participatedintheprogram,whichalsoenjoyedsupportfrommembersof Congress(Villazor,2007).
Thissupportbygovernmentofficialsled,onJune7,1983,totheMadison, Wisconsin,citycouncilpassingResolution39,105,officiallycommending churchesinthecitythatwereofferingsanctuarytoCentralAmericanrefugees, many(ifnotmost)ofwhomhadarrivedillegally.TheMadisoncitycouncil followedthiswithResolution41,075onMarch5,1985,officiallydeclaringthe entirecityasanctuaryforCentralAmericansfleeingviolenceinElSalvador andGuatemala.TheinspirationoftheSanctuaryMovementwasclearinthe resolutionsadoptedbycitieslikeMadisoninthe1980s,whichfrequentlywere ideologicalincharacter.
WithadecreaseinthenumberofCentralAmericanrefugeesbytheend ofthe1980s,sanctuarypoliciesremainedinplaceinmanyofthecitiesthat implementedthem,butmediacoverageofthetopicfadedwithtime.These policiesalsobegantoevolveintosomethingdifferentfromthosethathad beenpassedinsolidaritywiththeSanctuaryMovement.Increasinglythe subjectofthesepolicieswasnotrefugeesbutundocumentedimmigrants. Theywerealsonolongerstrictlyideological,astherewasafunctionalcomponent:localofficialswantedanincreasinglylargenumberofundocumented immigrantstofeelcomfortableinreportingcrimestolawenforcement.Some sawtheincreasinglyharshrhetoricandthecriminalizationoftheundocumentedbylegislationlikeCalifornia’sProposition187in1994andtheIllegal ImmigrationReformandImmigrantResponsibilityAct(IIRIRA)of1996as drivinganincreasinglylargewedgebetweenimmigrantcommunitiesandlocal officials,includinglawenforcement.
AftertheattacksofSeptember11,2001,localjurisdictionsincreased participationwithfederalauthoritiesthroughthe287(g)program,which
allowedlawenforcementtoenforceimmigrationlaws.SecureCommunities, aprogramthatsharesinformationwithICEaboutdeportableimmigrants incustodyelectronically,furtherincreasedtheapprehensionundocumented immigrantswouldlikelyhaveinanyinteractionswithlocallawenforcement. Manyobserversbelievedthattheseprogramscouldmakethejobofpolice moredifficultifLatinoimmigrantswereafraidtocallpoliceoutoffearof deportation.Sanctuarypoliciesduringthe1990sand2000sweretherefore bothanideologicalstatementofoppositiontoanti-immigrantlegislation andmeanttofostergreatertrustbetweenimmigrantcommunitiesandlocal government.
Modernsanctuarypoliciesforbidlocalofficialsfrominquiringintoindividuals’immigrationstatusandinsomecasesprohibitholdingundocumented immigrantsonICEdetainersiftheyhavenotbeenchargedwithaviolent offense.Proponentsofsanctuarypoliciesclaimthatthesepoliciesaremeant topromotecooperationbetweenpoliceandimmigrantcommunities,aswell astoallowundocumentedimmigrantstoaccesslocalresourceswithoutfear thattheywillbeaskedabouttheirstatus.Moregenerally,thesepoliciesare designedtohelpincorporateimmigrant-basedcommunities.Ifindividualsin thesecommunitiesfeelsafefromdeportation,theywillbemorelikelytocontributetotheimprovementoftheircommunities,andshouldbemorelikelyto interactwiththestatetoassistthelatterinprovidingessentialstateservices— likepolicing,fireprotection,andsoon.Becauseimmigrationenforcementis thesolejurisdictionofthefederalgovernment,sanctuarylocalitiesclaimthat theyarenotrequiredtocooperateorassistICEinenforcementactions.This positionandreasoningconstitutetheprecisepointofthefederalismconflict.
Opponents,suchasDonaldTrump,claimsanctuarymunicipalities arerewardinglawbreakersandthatsuchpoliciesincreasecrime,placing Americancitizensatrisk.TheTrumpadministrationhasrepeatedlysoughtto linksanctuarypoliciestoviolentcrime,usuallythroughanecdotes,suchasthe Steinleshooting.Theadministration’sclaimisnotonlythattheseimmigrants maynothavehadtheopportunitytocommittheircrimeshadtheybeen heldforICEbutalsothattheveryexistenceofsanctuarycitiesattractsa criminalelement.However,whenwemoveawayfromanecdotetopolicy,and empiricallyweighthepotentialprosandconsofsuchpolicies,thefindings overwhelminglysuggestthatwhileopposingsanctuarycitiesmightserveto motivateanti-immigrantvoters,sanctuarypoliciesdonotpromotecriminality butratherprovidebenefitsforresidentsofthesecitiesintermsofpolitical incorporation.
Inthisbookweexaminesanctuarypoliciesindetailandconsidermany ofthequestionsthatsuchpoliciesraise:Whatistheirhistory,andwhydid
policiesthatinitiallyweremeanttosupportrefugeesevolveintoonesmeantto protecttheundocumentedcommunity?Howhasthemedia,wherethepublic getsmostofitsinformationaboutsanctuarypolicies,framedtheissue,and howhasthischangedovertime?Whatdrivespublicsupportoroppositionto thesepolicies?Isittrulyafearofcrime,oristhismorerelatedtotheperceived threatfromLatinoimmigrants?Whatisbehindtheincreasingnumberof antisanctuarybillswe’veseenintroducedatthestatelevelsince2015?Do sanctuarypoliciesincreasecrime,astheirdetractorsclaim,orincreasetrust andincorporationwithinthelocalLatinocommunity,asproponentsargue? Weanswerthesequestionsinwhatisthefirstcomprehensiveexaminationof thepoliticsofsanctuarycitiesintheUnitedStates.
Defining Sanctuary
Oneinitialdifficultyinherentinthestudyofsanctuarycitiesisthatthereis noconcretedefinitionofhowexactlyasanctuarycityshouldbedefined.For instance,theOhioJobs&JusticePAC,whichmaintainsalistofsanctuarycities online,alsoincludes“informal”sanctuarycitiesintheirdefinition.Ininformal sanctuarycities,noresolutionorpolicyexistsonpaperbutinsteadtheirclassificationisbasedonobservedactions,suchaslackofenforcement.⁷However, thisclassificationseemsopentosubjectiveandbiasedinterpretationsofwho isillegalandwhatcountsaslackofenforcement.Inaddition,somelocalities, suchasTravisCounty,Texas(priortothepassageofSB-4in2017)maydecline tohonorICEdetainersfornonviolentoffenders,butthisisnotformallypart ofdepartmentpolicy.Likeinformalsanctuarycities,thesewouldbeexcluded fromouranalysis,whichonlyincludesmunicipalitieswithformalpolicieson thebooks,whichcanbeverifiedandarepubliclyavailable.
Thosecitieswithlegislationorofficialrulesinplacehaveagradationof sanctuarypolicies.Somecitiesorpolicedepartmentsonlyforbidlawenforcementfrommakingimmigrationinquiries,aswiththeLosAngelesPolice Department’sSpecialOrder40,whichwaspassedin1979.Thisrepresentsone oftheearliestexamplesofwhatcouldbecalledasanctuarypolicy,butbecause thegoalofSpecialOrder40wasnotideological—instead,itwassimplymeant tofostergreatercooperationbetweentheLatinoimmigrantcommunityin LosAngelesandthepolice—itattractedlittleattentionatthetime.Somecities mayalsoforbidlocalofficialsfromcollectinginformationrelatedtoimmigrationstatusinthedispensationofanycity-levelbenefits.Thesepoliciesare certainlycontentious,buttheTrumpadministrationhasmostoftentargeted localitiesthattakeapproachthisastepfurther.
Thesejurisdictions,likeSanFrancisco,inadditiontoforbiddinglocal officialsfrominquiringintoimmigrationstatus,alsorefusetohonordetainers byICEfornonviolentoffenders.ICEusesthesedetainerstohaveundocumentedimmigrantsheldpasttheirreleasedatesothattheycanbetakeninto custodyandenteredintodeportationproceedings.Cities—andinsomecases counties—thatdeclinetohonorthesedetainershavebeentheprimarytargetof theTrumpadministrationandothersanctuaryopponentslikeTexasgovernor GregAbbott.Thisrepresentsamuchmoredirectdefianceoffederalauthorities thansimplynotcollectingimmigration-relatedinformation.
Somesanctuarypoliciesdoincludedirectideologicalstatementsaffirming therightsofimmigrantsorcriticismsoffederalimmigrationenforcement andpolicy.Forexample,Berkeley,California’s,Resolution63,711-N.S.states, “Whereas,thespiritandintentofBerkeley’srefugeResolutionswouldbe violatedifCityfunds,facilitiesorstaffwereutilizedtoassisttheFederal government’sinhumaneimmigrationpoliciesandpractices.”⁸Incitieslike Berkeley,sanctuaryisdeclarednotjustforpracticalreasonsbutalsoasa wayofprotestingfederalimmigrationpolicies.InFebruary2018themayorof Berkeley’sneighborOakland,LibbySchaaf,madeherpersonalcommitment tothecity’ssanctuarypoliciesclearindeclaringthatshewouldwillinglygoto jailtoprotectundocumentedresidentsandlaterissuedanewsreleasewarning ofacomingICEraid.⁹
Notallpoliciesthatcouldbeconstruedas“sanctuary”policiesincludethis explicitlyideologicalaspectorhaveastheirgoalprotectingtherightsofimmigrantsthemselves.Forthepurposesofthisbook,wedefinea sanctuarycity as a cityorpolicedepartmentthathaspassedaresolutionorordinanceexpressly forbiddingcityorlawenforcementofficialsfrominquiringintoimmigration statusand/orcooperationwithICE,thusincorporatingbothideologicaland nonideologicalcitiesforthepurposeofouranalysis.Inordertobeincluded inouranalysis,acityhadtohaveaspecificsuchresolutionorordinance,but wedidnotrequirethatcitiesrefusetohonorICEdetainersforundocumented immigrantstakenintocustody.
Proponentsofsanctuarycitiesdefendthesepoliciesbyarguingthat immigrationisthesoleresponsibilityofthefederalgovernment,andstate andgovernmentsarenotrequiredandcannotbeforcedtodevoteresources toenforcingfederalimmigrationpolicy.Therefore,sanctuarycitiescan bereadasasubsetofthebroaderimmigrationfederalismframeworkin termsofconflictbetweendifferentlevelsofgovernment(Bousheyand Luedtke,2006,2011;GulasekaramandRamakrishnan,2015;Ramakrishnan andGulasekaram,2012).Inthe1990sunderIIRIRA,localofficialscould bedeputizedasimmigrationofficers,butthiswasoptional,asweresteps
post-9/11toencouragegreatercooperationandcollaborationbetweenfederal authoritiesandlocalofficialssuchasthe287(g)program.1⁰SupremeCourt precedentsuggeststhatwhilestates,cities,orcountiesmayopttoparticipate inimmigrationenforcement,thiscannotberequired.Twodecisions, New Yorkv.U.S.11in1992and Printzv.U.S.12in1997,foundthatthefederal governmentcouldnotcompelorcoercelocalofficialstoenforce,enact,or administerfederalprograms.Thesedecisionsformthelegalbasisformany sanctuarypoliciessincetheysuggestthatcitiesorstatesareinnowayrequired toassistinfederalimmigrationenforcement.
Additionally,while8U.S.C.Section137313prohibitslocalorstategovernmentsfromenactinglawsorpoliciesthatlimitcommunicationwiththe DepartmentofHomelandSecurity(DHS)about“informationregardingthe immigrationstatusorcitizenshipstatus”ofindividuals,sanctuarypolicies specificallyforbidlocalofficialsfromcollectingthisinformationinthefirst place.Sincelocalofficialsdonothavethisinformationtoshare,proponentsof sanctuarypoliciesarguethereisnoviolationofU.S.code.
Thesanctuarydebateisthusnotonlyaboutpolicybutalsoabouttherespectiverolesoflocal,state,andfederalofficialsinimmigrationenforcement.States likeCaliforniaandcitieslikeSeattlearguethatfederalismdictatesthatthey havearighttopassthesepolicies.SincetheydonotbarICEfromconducting operationsinsanctuarycitiesorstates,thereisnoconflictwithfederallaw.The Trumpadministration,andformerAttorneyGeneralJeffSessions,arguethat sanctuarypoliciesaremeanttoobstructfederalenforcement,thattheyviolate thefree-speechrightsofgovernmentemployeesbybarringthemfromsharing information,andthattheyoversteptheboundariesofstatesovereignty.This tensionhelpstodefinethedebate,asdoestheconnectionofthesepoliciesto anoft-demonizedgroupinAmericanpolitics:undocumentedimmigrants.
TheImmigrantThreatandSanctuaryCities
Thepolitics,mediacoverage,andpublicattitudesregardingmodernsanctuary citiesareallinfluencedbythebroaderdebateandhistoryofundocumented immigration—specificallyLatinoimmigration—inAmerica.Debatesaround Latinoimmigrationhavealwaysreliedonthreatnarrativestojustifyrestriction andincreasedcriminalization(GonzalezO’Brien,2018;MasuokaandJunn, 2013;Newton,2012;Ngai,2004;Tichenor,2002).Thesethreatscanbebroadly characterizedintothreecategories:economic,cultural,andcriminal.Allthree ofthesethreatframesarerelativelycommonbothinmediacoverageof
Mexicanimmigration,aswellasCongressionaldebateonlegislationrelated toundocumentedimmigration,thoughsincethe1990stherehasbeenan increasingrelianceonthecriminalthreatframe.JonathanSimoncallsthe increasingrelianceonlaw-and-orderissuestousefearasameansofattracting votersas“governingthroughcrime”(Simon,2006).Researchhasfoundthat elitesandmediabothtendtoexaggeratethethreatofvictimhoodindividuals facefromcrime,whichcanleadtoheightenedanxiety(Chiricosetal.,1997, 2000;Eschholz,1997;Simon,2006).Furthermore,heightenedanxietyattracts individualstomorenegative(ratherthanpositive)immigrationnewsstories (GadarianandAlbertson,2014).
Wehaveseenasimilarapproachtoundocumentedimmigration, withpoliticiansontherightlikeTomTancredo1⁴,SharronAngle1⁵,Pete Wilson1⁶,andDonaldTrumprelyingoncriminalitynarrativestoattractvotes. Inparticular,manyRepublicancandidatesandelectedofficialsappeartothink issueslikeundocumentedimmigrationingeneral—andsanctuarycitiesin particular—playtotheiradvantage;thatis,thattheirpartyownstheissue (Petrocik,1996).Elitemessaginglinkingundocumentedimmigrantstocrime hasinturninfluencedmediacoverageofthesubject,whichdrawsregularly onnarrativesofthreat(Chavez,2010;SantaAna,2002,2013).
ThepassageofS.5094in1929,alsoknownastheUndesirableAliens Act—whichforthefirsttimemadeundocumentedentryamisdemeanorand reentryafelony—effectivelylinkedthelong-standingrhetoricofimmigrant criminalitytothelegaltreatmentofLatinoimmigrants.Thiscriminalization oftheundocumentedhashadsignificantrepercussionsforpolicymaking, withanincreasingemphasisonenforcementoperationstoaddresstheissue despite(orperhapsbecauseof)therelianceofmanyAmericanindustrieson undocumentedlabor.TheprogramofMexicanrepatriationbetween1929and 1936,OperationWetbackin1954,andtheTrumpadministration’scrackdown allhavetheirrootsinS.5094(GonzalezO’Brien,2018).Allhavesoughttouse massdeportationcampaignsandthecreationofaclimateoffeartoaddress undocumentedimmigrationandjustifiedthisapproachbycitingthethreat undocumentedimmigrantsposedtoAmericanworkers,culture,andsafety.
Sanctuarypoliciesareinextricablylinkedtothebroaderissueofundocumentedimmigration,andbecauseofthis,policyresponsestothemhavebeen shapedbynarrativesofcriminalitythatarenowcommonplaceinthisdebate, whichhasanumberofconsequences.First,policymakershavebeeneffectively dividedintotwocampsonsanctuarypolicy,reflectingdivisionsonthelarger topicofundocumentedimmigration(Wong,2017b).GOPlawmakersprofess thatsanctuarypoliciesrewardcriminalbehaviorandthreatenthesafetyof
