Across the United States, an invisible map overlays the one you know. It’s not about states or highways, mountain ranges or rivers. It’s a map of trust and tension. A patchwork of jurisdictions that draw a line—not between red and blue, but between cooperation and defiance. These are the so-called sanctuary cities—municipalities and states that choose not to assist in federal immigration enforcement. To some, they’re a last defense of human decency. To others, they’re ground zero for lawlessness. Either way, few issues divide Americans quite like this one.
This isn’t a debate that started last week. Nor is it one that will end next week. But what makes sanctuary cities such a lightning rod—and why do they matter so much to people who don’t live anywhere near one?
What Exactly Is a Sanctuary City?
Let’s get the definitions straight. A sanctuary city is any city or jurisdiction that chooses not to cooperate with certain federal immigration enforcement efforts. That might mean declining to honor ICE detainers, refusing to let ICE use local jail space, or preventing local officers from gathering or sharing information about immigration status.
Critically, a sanctuary city does not:
-
Hide migrants from federal agents
-
Prevent ICE from operating within its boundaries
-
Stop migrants from being deported if ICE arrests them
Instead, these cities often do something simpler—but far more controversial: they just don’t help.
The legal foundation for this comes from the 10th Amendment, which prevents the federal government from forcing local or state governments to carry out federal programs. That includes immigration enforcement.
This has been backed by decades of legal precedent, including the Supreme Court. In short: cities don’t have to help ICE. They can opt out.
A Movement Born in the 1980s
Sanctuary cities aren’t new. The movement began in the 1980s, largely as a response to migrants fleeing civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala. Religious groups, especially churches in border states, provided shelter and assistance. By 1985, San Francisco had passed an ordinance limiting cooperation with federal immigration officials.
Since then, hundreds of cities and counties have followed suit. Today, sanctuary laws exist statewide in California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, and others. Major cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have formal sanctuary ordinances. Others—like Atlanta or Detroit—don’t, but often get labeled sanctuary cities anyway, either due to limited cooperation policies or for purely political reasons.
What Sanctuary Laws Do—and Don’t Do
Here’s what sanctuary laws can include:
-
Blocking local officials from being deputized by ICE
-
Preventing city or state agencies from signing detention contracts
-
Limiting data sharing with federal agencies
-
Supporting non-profits or religious organizations helping migrants
But again—none of these laws can stop federal officers from doing their job. They just ensure local officials won’t help them do it.
Also important: being undocumented isn’t a federal crime. It’s a civil violation. This means someone can be deported without ever being charged criminally—though they’re still subject to all other U.S. criminal laws.
The Argument For Sanctuary Cities
So why would any city voluntarily limit cooperation with ICE? Proponents cite three major arguments: public safety, humanitarian ethics, and economic reality.
1. Public Safety Improves
Despite frequent claims that sanctuary cities are crime havens, dozens of peer-reviewed studies show otherwise. In many cases, crime actually drops after a sanctuary law is implemented.
Why? Because when migrants don’t fear deportation:
-
They’re more likely to report crimes
-
They’re more likely to cooperate with police
-
They’re less likely to live “off the grid” in ways that can foster criminal behavior
Quoting the libertarian Cato Institute:
“The evidence is overwhelming that immigrants in the United States have had a lower crime rate than native-born Americans since at least the 19th century.”
2. It’s the Ethical Choice
The U.S. is a nation of immigrants—at least, that’s what the poems on our monuments claim. But our legal immigration system is complex, slow, and often broken. For people fleeing violence, persecution, or poverty, waiting 10 years for a visa isn’t an option.
To many, sanctuary policies represent a modern expression of American values—protecting the vulnerable and giving people a shot at building a life.
3. The Economy Depends on It
Over 6 million undocumented workers are estimated to power U.S. industries:
-
13.6% of construction workers
-
12.7% of farm workers
-
7% of hospitality
-
5.3% of manufacturing
These workers pay taxes. They fill jobs Americans don’t want. And yet, they receive few public benefits in return.
Removing them would cripple major sectors—and drastically raise consumer prices.
The Argument Against Sanctuary Cities
Opponents raise strong objections too—ranging from constitutional interpretations to public safety fears to economic concerns.
1. It Undermines Federal Law
Some legal scholars argue that immigration is exclusively a federal matter, and cities shouldn’t be able to opt out. Sanctuary policies, they say, erode the rule of law and create legal gray zones where migrants can slip through the cracks.
2. Public Safety Risks
Critics cite tragic individual cases—murders, assaults, or robberies—carried out by undocumented migrants who were released by sanctuary jurisdictions despite ICE detainers.
Their argument: one preventable crime is one too many. If someone shouldn’t be in the country legally, they shouldn’t be free to commit crimes—period.
According to ICE, as of mid-2024:
-
13,000 known or convicted homicide offenders remain free in the U.S.
-
Over 435,000 undocumented migrants have prior convictions
-
Many cities have failed to share key data with ICE
The fear is simple: sanctuary laws allow dangerous people to slip through the cracks.
3. Social Services and Economic Burden
Sanctuary cities often extend access to some social programs—like health clinics, schools, shelters, and sometimes even cash assistance. Critics argue that this:
-
Drains local and state budgets
-
Incentivizes more illegal immigration
-
Burdens taxpayers
-
Overwhelms public schools, hospitals, and housing
They also argue that low-wage migrant labor suppresses wages and takes jobs from U.S. citizens—particularly in communities already struggling.
Conspiracy, Rhetoric, and Fear
In today’s polarized political climate, sanctuary cities don’t just spark disagreement. They’re the centerpiece of larger, often conspiratorial narratives.
Some see them as part of the “Great Replacement” theory—an unfounded belief that migrants are being brought in to replace white Americans and shift voting demographics.
Others believe that sanctuary cities are hiding foreign enemies—from Islamic militants to Chinese operatives to Latin American gang leaders.
And then there’s the political theater. Republican governors from states like Texas and Florida have bussed migrants north to sanctuary cities like New York or Chicago—creating chaos and headlines that reinforce their message: “If you like sanctuary policies so much, deal with the consequences.”
What the Data Really Says
In the world of U.S. immigration, you can find a study to support almost anything. But here’s what peer-reviewed research and federal data generally agree on:
-
Sanctuary cities do not have higher crime rates
-
Immigrants (including undocumented ones) commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens
-
Sanctuary jurisdictions often have lower poverty and higher incomes
-
Undocumented workers are a key part of the U.S. economy
-
ICE frequently loses track of convicted criminals due to non-cooperation
Which of these matters more is where the argument begins.
The Reality: Two Americas, Two Realities
At its core, the debate over sanctuary cities is a debate over America itself.
To supporters, sanctuary cities represent:
-
Empathy
-
Opportunity
-
Constitutional autonomy
-
Economic pragmatism
To opponents, they represent:
-
Lawlessness
-
Danger
-
Unfairness
-
National insecurity
And here’s the twist: both sides are partly right.
That’s why this debate is so intractable. It’s not just about law or logic. It’s about identity. About fear. About who belongs and who doesn’t. About what America promises—and who gets to cash in on that promise.
Until both sides can agree on at least a shared understanding of the facts, this debate will rage on.
FAQ: Sanctuary Cities
Q: Are sanctuary cities illegal?
No. Courts have upheld the right of jurisdictions to opt out of federal immigration enforcement under the 10th Amendment.
Q: Do sanctuary cities protect criminals?
Not exactly. Sanctuary cities don’t stop ICE from deporting criminals—they just don’t assist in that process.
Q: Can ICE still operate in sanctuary cities?
Yes. ICE can arrest and deport people in any U.S. jurisdiction.
Q: Do sanctuary cities increase crime?
No credible data supports this. In fact, many studies suggest lower crime rates in sanctuary jurisdictions.
Q: Are undocumented immigrants eligible for welfare?
Generally no. Most federal benefits are off-limits, though some local jurisdictions offer limited support.
Q: Do sanctuary cities attract more migrants?
The evidence is mixed. Economic opportunity and safety tend to be bigger drivers than policy status alone.
