Spring UIL LD Topic Background

A sanctuary city is a United States city that follows certain practices that protect immigrants, including illegal immigrants. The city can be considered a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation; in short, such a city does not enforce immigration law. Despite a 1996 federal law, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities have adopted so-called "sanctuary policies."  Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal and illegal immigration--so illegal aliens often benefit from city services too. Critics believe that proponents of sanctuary policies, particularly local public servants in sanctuary cities, may be led to assume that Hispanic voters with American citizenship will support them in elections if it is perceived that they support policies that help Hispanics of any citizenship.

Despite fierce opposition there are still those who would claim that such cities are morally justifiable. Proponents of such policies argue that they promote efforts of police and public health departments to cooperate with immigrant communities in order to reduce crime and improve public health in those communities. In this view it is believed that criminals who are illegal immigrants are more likely to admit to or report crimes when they know they will not immediately be deported. Most importantly, however, proponents attempt to justify sanctuary cities on a basis of moral justice and egalitarianism. The concepts of sanctuary cities being preached and practiced can be traced most directly to the religious-oriented Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s. Without any legal standing, that movement was designed to assist foreign nationals entering the United States illegally in their flight from civil wars in Central America. This movement and those who share the same ideological platform also typically promote the idea of multiculturalism. Not only does this belief hold that it is beneficial for societies to mix and integrate other cultures, it also holds that it is humane and just to admit those coming from less beneficent and troubled countries. Law dictionaries define historical sanctuary as "a consecrated place which had privileges annexed to it, and to which offenders were accustomed to resort for refuge, because they could not be arrested there, nor the laws be executed. In general, any holy or consecrated place." The term is also defined as "a place of refuge where the process of the law cannot be executed." As the United States rests on policies affirming the equality of all men, there are those would use this as a justification to accept extensive illegal immigration to uphold this principle. In reality, however, this issue can not be simplified merely to egalitarian terms but must be viewed through the eyes of national security and economic practicality.

The U.S. Constitution does not have a provision for immigration sanctuary, and there is no legal precedent for it in the history of the United States of America. Despite the affirmation that sanctuary cities may help deter crime, they also pose a significant threat both to national security and to the economy. The fundamental role of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens. Loose immigration policy most especially manifested in "sanctuary policies" may and in many instances does adversely affect this role. To give an example, Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 terrorists, was stopped several times for traffic violations but his immigration status was not checked. If it had been, almost 3,000 people who perished that day might be alive today. Indeed, 30 percent of our federal prison population are illegal aliens and more than half of them have committed multiple crimes. The reality is that most of them will be released on American streets to commit more crimes. Ultimately, it is the American taxpayers who fund this phenomenon. In terms of economic policy, sanctuary cities demand federal money to subsidize education, environmental damage repair, more and more water treatment plants, police and fire protection, social handouts, and welfare benefits required by the growing ghost population of illegal aliens.

Many cities in the United States have been termed as such, including Washington, D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Austin, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon, New Haven, Connecticut and Portland, Maine. These cities have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.

Although sanctuary cities may help to temporarily reduce crime, in the long term it invites more occasion for crime to be committed by those who have not embraced American citizenship and its subsequent responsibilities. Morally, law should be upheld first and foremost. The safety and wellbeing of those citizens who have embraced the responsibilities of citizenship, should not be put at risk by those who have not. The American legacy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness may be put in jeopardy with such flippant disregard for law and order in society and ultimately American lives may have to pay the price.