Sanctuary Cities

Although there is no official legal definition of sanctuary city, the term generally refers to towns, cities, or counties that welcome undocumented immigrants and decline to cooperate completely with federal detention requests related to illegal migrants, often with a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. [2]

Sanctuary cities grew from the Sanctuary Movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s, in which religious congregations began helping undocumented Salvadorian and Guatemalan families settle in the United States. The congregations acted in direct defiance of U.S. immigration authorities, who denied over 90 percent of asylum requests by immigrants fleeing violence in El Salvador and Guatemala. The sanctuary activists believed that the federal government was breaking international and domestic refugee laws. [1][2]

Los Angeles was the first city to enact sanctuary policies, focusing on undocumented immigrants already in the United States. The chief of police enacted Special Order No. 40 on Nov. 27, 1979, stating that police officers should not inquire about immigration status and should provide city services to everyone equally. San Francisco followed suit, passing the “City of Refuge” resolution in 1985 and “City of Refuge” ordinance in 1989, which required that all city employees stop immigration policing and provide city services to all residents regardless of immigration status. [2][12][29]

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, as of January 7, 2025, there were 13 states and hundreds of cities and counties with some sort of sanctuary laws that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In response to increasing numbers of sanctuary cities before and during President Donald Trump’s first term, at least 12 states banned sanctuary city policies. There are no federal laws against sanctuary policies, but, while campaigning for his second term, President Trump stated he would “ask Congress to pass a law outlawing sanctuary cities nationwide, and … demand the full weight of the federal government on any jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate” with ICE. [22][24][25] [26][41]

During his first term in office, Trump held that the federal government should be able to withhold funds from sanctuary cities for their noncompliance with federal laws. President Joe Biden reversed that policy. On day one of his second administration, January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” to “ensure that so-called ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not receive access to Federal funds.” [22][27][28][30][31][33][34][35][41]

After Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi was sworn into office on Feb. 5, 2024, she quickly ordered an end to Department of Justice grants to jurisdictions that “unlawfully interfere with federal law enforcement.” [44]

On Feb. 7, the Trump administration sued Illinois, Cook County, and the city of Chicago, alleging:

The conduct of officials in Chicago and Illinois minimally enforcing — and oftentimes affirmatively thwarting — federal immigration laws over a period of years has resulted in countless criminals being released into Chicago who should have been held for immigration removal from the United States. [44]

Sanctuary jurisdictions fought back, and on Feb. 9, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties (California), King County (Washington), Portland (Oregon), and New Haven (Connecticut) sued the Trump administration for the “illegal targeting” of sanctuary cities via violations of the due process clause, the separation of powers, and the 10th Amendment. San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu stated, “This is the federal government illegally asserting a right it does not have, telling cities how to use their resources, and commandeering local law enforcement.” [45]

So, are sanctuary cities good for the United States?

Pro Quotes

Brian Steel, president of Fraternal Order of Police Capital City Lodge No. 9, stated the following in support of Columbus, Ohio’s sanctuary policy:

An individual, documented or undocumented, should know that when they call the police, we’re going to come there and we’re going to help them," Steel said. "We’re going to help them jump start their car, we’re going to help them if they’re a victim of domestic violence, if they’re robbed.... Hopefully we’ll never get into, ’Hey, what’s your legal status?’

[He added] Let’s say someone’s being abused by their spouse. We would not want them to fear calling us because we might deport them. We want there to always be trust.

—Jordan Laird, Bailey Gallion, and Bart Jansen, “Could Columbus Face Federal Blowback under Trump for Its Immigration Policies?,” dispatch.com, Jan. 22, 2025

Nithya Raman, Los Angeles City Council member, stated:

This ordinance codifies our city policies into law [and] goes beyond our existing Sanctuary City Executive Directive in an important way: it prohibits the direct and indirect sharing of data with federal immigration authorities, an important gap to close in our city’s protections for immigrants.

Evidence has shown over and over again that when there are heightened fears of immigration enforcement, immigrant communities are more reluctant to call for police assistance, even in cases of domestic violence and other emergencies.

This new ordinance would codify the approach that LA has prioritized since 1979: Angelenos must be able to call for help when they need it without fear, regardless of their immigration status. With mass deportations on the federal agenda, codifying our city’s sanctuary city executive directive into law is how we can keep all Angelenos safer.

—Khaleda Rahman, “How Sanctuary Cities Are Preparing for Trump’s Mass Deportation Plans,” newsweek.com, Nov. 26, 2024

Kim Corona of the New York Immigration Coalition stated:

FACT: Sanctuary cities are safer for everyone.

• Sanctuary policies allow immigrants to report abuses and engage with public safety officials without fear of deportation. 
• Sanctuary city policies allow immigrants to feel more comfortable acting as witnesses in criminal investigations.
• On average, 35.5 fewer crimes are committed per 10,000 people in counties with sanctuary policies compared to those that do not. 

—Kim Corona, “Getting the Facts Straight on Sanctuary Cities,” nyic.org, Feb. 8, 2024

Con Quotes

James Rogers, senior counsel with America First Legal, stated:

Sanctuary policies are against the law, make a mockery of America’s democratic principles, and demonstrate a shocking disrespect for our Constitution and our citizens. The officials in charge of sanctuary jurisdictions have no excuse and must be held accountable.

—Wendy Fry and Jeanne Kuang, “Trump Allies Warn California Leaders They Could Go to Prison over Sanctuary City Laws,” calmatters.org, Dec. 27, 2024

Phillip Linderman of the Center for Immigration Studies stated:

In 1832, President Andrew Jackson made it crystal clear that the state of South Carolina had no authority to “nullify” federal laws that it did not like. Not one to mince words, Old Hickory called such acts treason.

In enforcing the collection of national tariffs, Jackson called for federal troops and reminded South Carolina that “the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, [is] incompatible with the existence of the Union, [and] contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution.”

In 2025, at the start of his second term, President Donald Trump must break the 13 states that currently shield foreign criminals from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The result of this unconstitutional non-cooperation is that ICE is unable to deport many thousands of dangerous criminal foreigners who are allowed to remain in the country to commit more crimes. These 13 “nullifying” states, as well as many other local government authorities all across the country, have adopted laws, rules, or policies that impede or prohibit all cooperation with ICE.

—Phillip Linderman, “How to Break the Sanctuary States,” cis.org, Oct. 4, 2024

Representative August Pfluger (R-TX), stated:

For years, liberal mayors and governors have proudly interfered with the enforcement of federal immigration law by declaring their regions ‘Sanctuary Cities.’ Now, they are begging for more federal funding to manage the influx of illegal aliens due to President Biden’s border crisis. Under no circumstances should a state or local government that flouts federal law be entitled to hardworking taxpayer dollars. Defund sanctuary cities—not the police.

—August Pfluger, “Pfluger Introduces No Funding for Sanctuary Cities Act,” pfluger.house.gov, Feb. 1, 2024

Discussion Questions

1. How would you summarize the reasons why cities or states might decline to cooperate with the federal government on detention requests? What other solutions can you think of to address their concerns?
2. Should the federal government be allowed to withhold funding from states and cities that break the law? Why or why not?
3. Which side do you find most compelling? List three specific pieces of supporting evidence from the article (or from additional research) that support your view.