Immigration and Sanctuary Laws
Each student is required to complete a research paper on a current issue facing law enforcement leaders. I have chosen the topic of Immigration and Sanctuary Laws.
Immigration and Sanctuary Laws
Introduction
Recently, sanctuary and immigration policies have caught the attention of policy debates within the U.S. These laws relate to law enforcement since the counties or states that adopt them prohibit their local officers from interacting with immigration authorities (Otsu, 2020). There have been fights to end sanctuary laws as President Trump tries to enforce strict rules within immigration laws. Some people are supporting the president in the belief that immigrants increase the crime rates within the nation. Some citizens also believe that anti-sanctuary policies are what America needs since they encourage both the police and community to eradicate illegal aliens. On the other hand, some oppose such efforts and insist on offering refuge to those running away from dangerous situations in their countries (Lasch, 2018). Many are wondering how long this debate will continue as the federal government debates with state governments.
Understanding Immigration and Sanctuary laws
States have been forced to take the law of immigration into their own hands after a series of disagreements within the federal legislatures and fluid policy changes by the executive orders. These changes can be characterized as either restrictive or unrestrictive (Roberts, 2017). Since the year 2005, immigration laws have experienced a steady increase such that 142 to 218 laws were enacted each year during the 2008-2015 timespan. By the year 2015, all but 11 states had policies regarding immigration. The states that enacted restrictive laws allowed their local enforcement officers to cooperate with the U.S immigration and Customs Enforcement under the 287(g) Program (Garcia, 2009). However, those states that implemented unrestrictive laws offered programs that provided employment, social service, and housing support to immigrants without documentation. In some states, immigrants were allowed to attain an education, receive at least one healthcare benefit, work, or drive without local police interference. These immigration policies led to the establishment of sanctuary laws.
The Issue of Crimmigration
Crimmigration is a newly coined word that puts immigration laws and criminal laws together. The law deals with how criminal offenses may affect the immigration status of an alien. There have been increasing policies in crimmigration law geared towards ending sanctuary cities. These laws have been used to pressure state and local governments to hand over immigrants since 1980 (Lasch et al., 2018). In the beginning, the relationship was welcoming to states. However, by the end of Obama’s first term, the federal government began using the policies to command states into turning over immigrant residents. As much as President Obama tried to enforce reforms to the laws, president Trump’s administration worked towards overturning these reforms to put an end to sanctuary cities.
Immigrants have been blamed for increasing crime rates within their areas hence the use of increased policies to eradicate them. Such strategies have been used to point fingers at limited cooperators whose crime rates are on the rise. According to Martinez et al. (2018), research from fellow scholars has proved that there is a decline in sanctuary states’ crime regardless of what the media reports. Based on the literature the authors reviewed, it was found that sanctuary states develop immigration political opportunities that generate an inverse immigrant-crime relationship. This is because the immigrants create trust with city institutions who then meet their demands. The FBI crime statistics were also analyzed, and the results showed that cities that passed at least one sanctuary law experienced a drop in the robbery. At the same time, homicide levels remained the same (Martinez et al., 2018). However, the studies were not free of limitations since some of the relationships did not consider race hence evaluating the crime statistics.
Trump’s battle against immigrants
Trump’s administration has shown significant escalations in the fight against sanctuary laws. For the longest time, since the start of his presidency, Trump has had it in for immigrants, and he has not given the law enforcement leaders a break to achieving his agenda. Early this year, the Justice Department sued the state and local governments in Washington, California, and New Jersey under the president (Benner, 2020). It is in the hopes of President Trump that he will end sanctuary cities, but first, he has to force the hand of the local and state governments. Justice Department officials have had to support Trump in arguing that the sanctuary laws obstruct federal law and are unconstitutional. They focus mainly on extraditing criminals and deporting immigrants who enter America illegally.
At some point, Microsoft had to stand up to the Trump Administration when he revoked the DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) program. At that time, Microsoft had thirty-nine workers with deferred legal action under DACA. The president of Microsoft fought back, claiming that the company would protect their workers as per their legal rights (Villazor and Gulasekaram, 2018). Other companies also joined in to protect their workers from law enforcement leaders acting as Trump’s puppets. All this negative energy from President Trump has shown an increase in sanctuary havens across school districts, restaurants, and even hospitals. American’s have had an increasing need to offer protection to their refugee brothers and sisters hence making law enforcers feel the heat from the federal government.
The future of immigration and sanctuary laws
The U.S. federal government should brace for an extended period of push and pull dynamics generated by the administrative apparatus used to enforce immigration laws (Rodriguez, 2017). Law enforcement leaders should not be surprised by the changing conceptions of immigration policy based on the beliefs of the reigning power’s perceptions. Just as Donald Trump is hell-bent on fighting illegal immigrants, it may not be clear what the next president will stand for. And while immigration federalism gives authority to local governments, the federal government is limited towards its actions at determining the policies in individual states. The question on the future of immigration and sanctuary laws is yet to be answered due to the federal system complexities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the debate across state and federal governments regarding immigration and sanctuary laws continues. While some people see the need to offer refuge to foreigners in need of a better life, some claim that such actions could endanger American people’s safety. For a long while, President Donald Trump campaigned about the deportation of immigrants claiming that they are increasing the country’s crime rates. Unfortunately, researchers prove otherwise since various studies show an inverse correlation in immigrant-crime relationships within areas that provide sanctuary. And while the president serves his term enacting more immigration laws, there is no saying what the next president will offer. Therefore, the debate continues to weigh down law enforcement leaders, leaving them in the middle of a crisis.
References
Benner, K. (2020). Justice Department Sues over Sanctuary Laws in California, N.J. and Seattle. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/us/politics/justice-department-sanctuary-law.html
Garcia, M. J. (2009). “Sanctuary Cities”: Legal Issues. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Lasch, C. N., Chan, R. L., Eagly, I. V., Haynes, D. F., Lai, A., McCormick, E. M., & Stumpf, J. P. (2018). Understanding Sanctuary Cities. BCL Rev., 59, 1703.
Martínez, D. E., Martínez‐Schuldt, R. D., & Cantor, G. (2018). Providing Sanctuary or Fostering Crime? A Review of the Research on “Sanctuary Cities” and Crime. Sociology compass, 12(1), e12547.
Otsu, Y. (2019). Sanctuary City and Crime. Available at SSRN 3453413.
Roberts, A. (2018). Providing Safety for Sanctuary Cities: The Constitutional and Policy Arguments Supporting their Enactment of Unrestrictive Laws and Policies by Sanctuary Cities and States. Elon L. Rev., 10, 365.
Rodriguez, C. (2017). Enforcement, integration, and the future of immigration federalism. Journal on Migration and Human Security, 5(2), 509-540.
Villazor, R. C., & Gulasekaram, P. (2018). The New Sanctuary and Anti-Sanctuary Movements. UCDL Rev., 52, 549.
