“Sanctuary Cities” and the concept of “sanctuary,” in general, are hot topics right now, nationally and locally.
So this seems like a good time to share some thoughtful reading and research on the topic …
- Are Immigrants Prone to Crime and Terrorism?Apparently not.
” ‘Empirically, domestic terrorism is carried out by citizens—not immigrants—with right-wing terrorism, racial hate crimes, and the sovereign-citizen movement making up a majority of domestic terrorist incidents,” Joel Day, assistant professor of security and global studies at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told PolitiFact. “Other domestic incidents have indeed been carried out by those who came here through legal channels.’ “
- The Criminalization of Immigration in the United StatesSome #realfacts
- Higher Immigration is Associated with Lower Crime Rates
- Immigrants are Less Likely than the Native-Born to Be Behind Bars
- Immigrants are Less Likely Than the Native-Born to Engage in Criminal Behavior
- The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the EconomySome #realfacts
- Sanctuary counties have lower crime rates than comparable nonsanctuary counties.
- Local economies are stronger in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
- Sanctuary counties are keeping families together, strengthening local economies.
“The data are clear: Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment.”
- Whom Do Sanctuary Cities Protect?
“Sanctuary cities are not actively harboring the undocumented or forgiving crimes when they do commit them; they are refusing to take on tasks of federal immigration enforcement that were never theirs to begin with. Although sanctuary cities can refuse to cooperate, their ability to impede federal immigration is fairly limited: they cannot prevent federal authorities from conducting raids or otherwise enforcing immigration laws themselves.”
“Jurisdictions have good reasons to adopt sanctuary policies, some political and some pragmatic. Some municipalities do not want local law enforcement to be active participants in mass deportation and have rallied to the defense of their immigrant communities, in part because the failure of immigration reform has made it impossible for people to stay legally and they abhor the idea of tearing communities apart. Others believe immigration enforcement should be reserved for federal authorities. But the objections extend far beyond jurisdictional and political ones. The primary one is that effective policing is predicated on community trust. The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing recognized this: “At all levels of government, it is important that laws, policies, and practices not hinder the ability of local law enforcement to build the strong relationships necessary to public safety and community well-being.” The report concludes that “whenever possible, state and local law enforcement should not be involved in immigration enforcement.”
- Why Sanctuary Cities Must Exist
“[Sanctuary] has long been an escape valve for society when the law can’t meet the deeper demands of justice.”
“The concept of sanctuary derives from the ancient imperative to provide hospitality to the stranger. […] In biblical history and in the Middle Ages, sanctuary enabled communities to adjust the law to exceptional circumstances. In later centuries, the law took such circumstances into account when it established different degrees of murder.”
“The sanctuary cities of the 2000s are part of [an] American tradition. Some municipalities deliberately lay claim to the title explicitly to protect immigrants. Others simply wish to avoid potential legal problems that might stem from detaining people without full authority. Many, including Los Angeles, cite the difficulty of policing the city when the undocumented are afraid any contact with the authorities could end in deportation.”
“Instead of attacking sanctuary cities, Congress should be listening to their message. Sanctuary cities recognize that that in most cases, deportation is the wrong punishment for illegal immigration, which is a breach of civil, not criminal, law. They understand that our laws do not adequately protect the needs of the strangers who, for the most part, have crossed the border to take work that is eagerly offered them. The sanctuary movement considers a purely bureaucratic enforcement system, which can include long detainment and judgment without jury or even a judge, as an arbitrary arm of prejudicial policy instead of just law.”
For more Civic Engagement resources and information: #GetInvolvedCharleston
PLEASE SHARE:
