Immigration Policy Analysis: Sanctuary Cities, ICE, and Federal Power

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of US immigration policy, examining the contentious issues surrounding sanctuary cities and the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It delves into the historical context of immigration policy, including the impact of The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 and the evolution of sanctuary policies at local and state levels. The report explores the tension between federal, state, and local authorities, highlighting the debate over federal power versus local autonomy in immigration enforcement. It examines the arguments for and against sanctuary policies, considering the impacts on both immigrants and public safety. Furthermore, the report analyzes the concept of 'crimmigration' and the interplay of criminal and immigration laws. The study also looks at the human cost of immigration policies and the impact of the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act) on data sharing. Overall, this report offers a multifaceted perspective on the complexities of US immigration, providing insights into the legal, social, and political dimensions of this critical issue.

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

3IMMIGRATION
Executive Order 13768 States that refuse to share information with federal officials or
comply with federal immigration law would be jeopardizing their federal funds. As a result of
this move about thirty-three states introduced provisions that would allow them to cooperate
with ICE. This order being violative of the doctrine of separation of power was struck down
in November 2017, reestablishing the autonomy of local authorities on their policies and
procedures.
In Texas no city has explicitly declared sanctuary status however in some instances
there is little cooperation with federal authorities. The Republican Governor Greg Abbott
“signed a controversial state law prohibiting local governments in the state from enacting
policies that prevent local officials from sharing immigration-related information with the
federal government.” As a result, today, “at least 31 states are considering legislation this
year that would ban sanctuary policies,” yet those bills are facing serious “opposition from
mayors and other officials of progressive cities.” Phoenix Law Enforcement Association has
also called for ending of Sanctuary Policies in their area
Illegal immigration and importance of sanctuary cities are related and give rise to the
provisions of citizenship and residency. The concept of immigration and citizenship are
interlinked. To understand which individuals, qualify as aliens and immigrants a nation must
specify who its citizens are, the nature of integration and how citizenship can be obtained.
Citizenship is a right that is associated with birth, lineage and migration. It entitles an
individual to inhabit a certain country and enjoy the privileges and rights associated with such
a legal status. A distinction must also be made between undocumented juvenile delinquents
and adult immigrants (Villazor 578). Juvenile delinquents must be treated with caution and
care while complying with all the requirements and due process.
There has been an integration of criminal and immigration law and activities that are
aimed to be prevented and monitored by law enforcement agencies. ‘Crimmigration’ coined

4IMMIGRATION
by Stumpf exposes immigrants to harsh outcomes of both the disciplines of law. There is a
distinction between individuals who enter illegally and those who are unauthorized, while the
former is seen is a criminal offense the later amounts to an offense that is civil in nature. The
removal of immigrants is however a civil process carried out by the administrative wing once
they have been identified.
To solve the problem of the immigration policy is, essentially to look at its roots. The
start of this activism, between federal, state and local governments had started due to The
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, but
according to VARSANYI, MONICA W., et al, “The IIRIRA does not require that state and
local law enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. Rather, it simply
invites them to do so, in keeping with the constitutional separation of federal and local
policing powers.” Thus, the problem should be solved, I would suggest, from below to the
top, from a local to federal level; by revising the “sanctuary policies,” on one hand, and
decreasing the ICE power on the other.
The tug of war between the state and federal officials involving the fluctuation of
power in dealing with immigrants, especially with the view of crime and violence has a deep-
rooted human cost. On the one hand there is the protection guaranteed to individuals, equal
treatment and opportunities to immigrants, increased reporting of crime, better police and
resident relationship, giving autonomy to police agencies to deploy resources as they think
fit. While this policy has witnessed negative outcomes like the 2018 Tulare County shooting.
Where an illegal immigrant, Gustavo Garcia who had previously been deported twice
returned and was also released after being arrested for misdemeanor a result of sanctuary law,
went on a shooting rampage. With Hiu Lui Ng however a very different story transpired.
After living in United States with his parents and sister for 15 years and applying for asylum
and adjustment of his status he was arrested by the immigration authorities. Despite repeated

5IMMIGRATION
requests for medical attention he did not receive any until the same was ordered by a judge
and it was subsequently discovered that he was suffering from liver cancer and was a
fractured spine which was the result of the torture he was subjected to. He later dies in
custody within a week (Martinez 667). There can therefore be no universal truth if
sanctioning policies are largely beneficial or detrimental, and if illegal immigration should be
dealt with lightly or stringently.
With declining support from state law enforcing agencies, and increased
confidentiality policies between the local and federal agencies, relief is sought from other
nations. The Clarifying Lawful Overseas use of Data Act (CLOUD) uses bi-lateral treaties to
establish a platform for exchange of data possessed by other nations. This Act is merely a
framework and structure for future legislations (Cook). This act would help in curbing
criminal activities of a large magnitude that spread across several nations and are hard to
detect and deter. The avenues of information exchange have been made easier across nations
as the same are being challenged and limited within local boundaries.

6IMMIGRATION
Bibliography
"Mayor declares St. Petersburg a sanctuary city" Bay News 9, February 04, 2017. Retrieved
February 4, 2017.
Aliverti, Ana. "Making people criminal: The role of the criminal law in immigration
enforcement." Theoretical Criminology 16.4 (2012): 417-434.
Androff, David K., et al. "US immigration policy and immigrant children's well-being: The
impact of policy shifts." J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare 38 (2011): 77.
Cook C. “Active Cyber Defense: Assessing Legislative Options For A New International
Cybersecurity Rulebook”
Dinan, Stephen. "Half of all Americans now live in 'sanctuaries' protecting immigrants". The
Washington Times. Retrieved 2018-05-10.
EBSCOhost , doi:10.1111/j.1467-9930.2011.00356.x.
Edelman, Adam. "Spurred By Trump, States Battle Sanctuary Cities". NBC News , 2019,
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/spurred-trump-states-battle-sanctuary-cities-
n787651. Accessed 7 Aug 2017.
Epps, Garrett. "When Republicans Attack States' Rights". The Atlantic , 2019,
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/when-republicans-become-anti-states-
rights /555362/. Accessed 13 Mar 2018.
HOLDER, SARAH. "As California Protects Immigrants, Cities Revolt". Citylab , 2019,
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/04/california-cities-fight-their-sanctuary-state/556973/.
Accessed 3 Apr 2018.
Joyner, Kara. "Arresting Immigrants: Unemployment and Immigration Enforcement."
Migration Letters 15.2 (2018): 215-238.
Martinez Grant “Indefinite Detention of Immigrant Information: Federal and State
Overreaching in the Interpretation on 8 C.F.R 236.6” The Yale Law Journal (667-677)

7IMMIGRATION
Miles, Thomas J., and Adam B. Cox. "Does immigration enforcement reduce crime?
evidence from secure communities." The Journal of Law and Economics 57.4 (2014): 937-
973.
Morse, Ann et al. "Sanctuary Policy FAQ". Ncsl.Org , 2019,
http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/sanctuary-policy-faq635991795.aspx. Accessed 28
July 2017.
Reich, Gary. “Hitting a Wall? The Trump Administration Meets Immigration Federalism.”
Publius: The Journal of Federalism , vol. 48, no. 3, Summer 2018, pp. 372–395.
EBSCOhost , doi:10.1093/publius/pjy013
STARR, BRANTLEY. “Executive Power over Immigration.” Texas Review of Law &
Politics, vol. 22, no. 2, Winter- 2017, pp. 283–296. EBSCOhost ,
Stumpf, J. P. (2006). "The Crimmigration Crisis: Immigrants, Crime, and Sovereign Power."
American University Law Review 56 (2006): 367.
VARSANYI, MONICA W., et al. “A Multilayered Jurisdictional Patchwork: Immigration
Federalism in the United States.” Law & Policy , vol. 34, no. 2, Apr. 2012, pp. 138–158.
Villazor, Rose C. ““Sanctuary Cities” and Local Citizenship