Immigration

Running head: IMMIGRATION
Immigration
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1IMMIGRATION
The US today contains around “10–12 million unauthorized immigrants,” raising a
critical debate and divergence among American citizens. The problem is that this divergence
has been politicized, when overlapping policies have not only challenged the state and local
level of the government, but the federal one as well. California and Texas, for example, have
been fertile grounds for this debate despite their diverse communities and policies. To be
specific, the “state and local policy activism have reinforced the decentralization of U.S.
immigration policy.” There is a marked difference between what the state and federal
agencies deem important and worth protection. On one hand, the executive branch aims to
“retains plenary power over immigration policy,” but on the other hand, and in practice, local
laws “constitutes a de facto encroachment into that authority.” But because locals, who are
the one facing both immigrants (legal and illegal) and the federal laws, the solution to solve
the immigration policy, I believe, should be formed following a bottom up approach;
essentially, by revising “sanctuary” and ICE’s policies.
Although the power of the federal government remains superior, not only in the
administration of President Trump, but also under Obama’s leadership have faced “local
stakeholders, who counter with both legal and de facto challenges to executive actions.”
More troubling, is the fact that the current administration, provides more power to ICE
essentially over “sanctuary” states. Thus, by April 2017, “arrests by ICE increased 38 percent
compared to same period the previous year.”
Sanctuary Policy as it stands protects immigrants from questioning and interrogation
by federal officials and subsequently from being reported as illegal aliens when they commit
trivial and minor crimes. The policy is a direct violation of The Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and also hinders police in combating
criminal activities by alien groups and organizations. Sanctuary cities offer reduced support
to the federal and national officials in strict enforcement of immigration laws. The IIRAIRA

2IMMIGRATION
of 1996 is considered violative of human dignity and rights as deportation is seen as a fit
punishment for any kind of criminal misdemeanor and minor criminal activities. The aim of
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is to identify and remove illegal aliens that are
present within national borders. In their attempt to do so little to no distinction is made of the
gravity of the acts of misdemeanor or the personal history and human cost to the immigrant.
Sanctuary includes confidentiality policies that are extended to the undocumented
residents of that jurisdiction. Sanctuary however does not give illegal immigrants full
protection from deportation, prosecution or detection as there is no universal understanding
of the policy and the ambit and scope of its application. Such jurisdictions forward finger
prints of people in jail to federal agencies even when Sanctuary Policy exists. The
involvement and contribution of the local jurisdiction for immigration enforcement is a
voluntary process and following the Tenth Amendment there can be no directives that
command state officials to enforce federal programs.
Over five hundred jurisdictions in America in 2018 provide for sanctuary policies.
Berkley being the first city in 1971 to introduce the resolution followed by a symbolic
movement in San Francisco in 1985. In 2017 The St Petersburg mayor Rick Kriseman
declared it as a sanctuary city claiming the increased tolerance and diversity within its
jurisdiction and provided protection to the inhabitants from harmful immigration laws.
Coachella adopted the policy in 2015 and Los Angeles as early as 1979. Similarly, California
state in the same year signed a bill ‘California Sanctuary Law SB54’ which reduces the local
cooperation with ICE.
This move led to the suing of the Governor of California because the laws made it
increasingly difficult for the federal immigration officers to deport immigrant criminals. This
law was seen as being diametrically opposite to national efforts and motives. An attempt has
been made to curb Sanctuary Policies through the allocation of federal fund. As per