The Limits of Local Sanctuary Initiatives for Immigrants

AuthorMartha F. Davis
Published date01 July 2020
Date01 July 2020
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1177/0002716220931423
100 ANNALS, AAPSS, 690, July 2020
DOI: 10.1177/0002716220931423
The Limits of
Local Sanctuary
Initiatives for
Immigrants
By
MARTHA F. DAVIS
931423ANN THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYLIMITS OF LOCAL SANCTUARY INITIATIVES FOR IMMIGRANTS
research-article2020
In recent years, many local governments in the United
States have declared themselves to be sanctuaries, wel-
coming jurisdictions, safe cities, or cities of refuge for
immigrants. At the same time, federal rhetoric and
associated national laws—which have legal precedence
over local immigration policies—have shifted in anti-
immigrant directions. These developments raise ques-
tions about whether and how local sanctuary policies
affect immigrants’ lives, including their feelings of fear,
their access to local services, and their interactions with
law enforcement. This article draws on existing studies
and new interview data from a pilot study of two sanc-
tuary cities, Boston and Seattle, to evaluate the impacts
of municipal sanctuary policies for immigrants, includ-
ing their potential influences on immigrant and refugee
integration. I also explore policy approaches that might
enhance these policies’ effectiveness in achieving their
supporters’ stated goals.
Keywords: sanctuary; immigrant; asylum; city
As early as 1987, dozens of local U.S. govern-
ments identified their jurisdictions as sanc-
tuaries for immigrants (Smith 1996, 185). This
secular iteration of sanctuary was initially an
outgrowth of the religiously based sanctuary
movement motivated by resistance to U.S.
policies in Central America (Chinchilla,
Hamilton, and Loucky 2009, 116). At least one
scholarly observer pegged this particular move-
ment’s demise as 1992, with the perceived end
of the Central America Peace Movement
(Smith 1996, 348). But the concept of a local
sanctuary jurisdiction—the idea of a civic safe
space—has proven to have staying power
beyond its origins in the religious movement
focused on Central America. Particularly since
the 2016 election, the sanctuary movement has
Martha F. Davis is University Distinguished Professor
of Law at Northeastern University School of Law,
where she is a codirector of the Program on Human
Rights and the Global Economy.
Correspondence: m.davis@northeastern.edu
LIMITS OF LOCAL SANCTUARY INITIATIVES FOR IMMIGRANTS 101
gained both visibility and momentum, with a growing number of local govern-
ment leaders, as well as congregations, openly criticizing federal immigration
policies that attempt to enlist the cooperation of local law enforcement to identify
and deport undocumented migrants (Orozco and Andersen 2018, 6; Avila etal.
2018, 17). With anti-immigrant rhetoric now common at the highest levels of the
U.S. government, hundreds of states, counties, cities, and towns across the coun-
try have declared themselves to be sanctuaries, welcoming jurisdictions, safe
cities, or cities of refuge (Capps etal. 2018, 2).1
While local sanctuary policies undoubtedly serve a political purpose for progres-
sive local leaders staking out their positions in opposition to a more conservative
national government (Ulloa 2017), how sanctuary policies impact individual immi-
grant residents, both undocumented and documented, is a different issue. This
article draws on existing studies and new interview data from a pilot study of two
sanctuary cities, Boston and Seattle, to evaluate the actual on-the-ground impacts
of municipal sanctuary policies for immigrants, including their potential influences
on immigrant and refugee integration, and to explore policy approaches that might
enhance these policies’ effectiveness in achieving their supporters’ stated goals.
Literature Review
The law relating to local sanctuary policies
Subnational governments face a complicated legal landscape as they attempt
to implement their welcoming policies. As a constitutional matter, immigration
law and policy are reserved to the federal government. However, the federal
government relies on the cooperation of subnational governments to implement
its immigration directives. Given the scope of the enforcement challenges,
national immigration policies cannot, as a practical matter, be carried out in the
interior of the United States without the assistance and cooperation of local law
enforcement personnel. When local communities stake out a position of nonco-
operation with federal immigration priorities, it creates a significant impediment
for the federal government’s efforts to implement its immigration policies.
Federal, state, and local authorities routinely cooperate in most areas of law
enforcement. All told, there are approximately three thousand subnational law
enforcement jurisdictions in the United States, which make up an extensive
NOTE: This article draws on research, including semistructured interviews, conducted for the
project Safe Places and the Politics of Fear: An Interdisciplinary Investigation of Sanctuary
Cities. Research was conducted in the Greater Boston metropolitan area and Seattle during
2018 by an interdisciplinary team at Northeastern University, consisting of Professors Berna
Turam, Alisa Lincoln, Amy Farrell, and Carlos Cuevas; the author; postdoctoral fellow Betul
Esghi; and graduate students under their supervision, particularly Ashley Houston. The
research was supported by the Global Resilience Institute of Northeastern University, and
interviews were conducted pursuant to institutional review board (IRB) approval. The author
thanks Anna Annino and Alexandra Lancey for exceptional research assistance, and Elizabeth
Ennen for insightful comments and assistance with the conceptual framing of the article.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT