Suchergebnisse

Sanctuary cities protect immigrants from unfair anti-immigration policies / American Immigration Lawyers Association -- The priority for protection should be US citizens, not immigrants / Joseph Klein -- Local law enforcement is critical to cracking down on illegal immigration / Police Executive Research Forum -- Local law enforcement is not responsible for immigration enforcement / CT Mirror -- Sanctuary cities allow immigrants to become a contributing part of the community / Andrea Germanos -- Sanctuary cities are protecting criminals / Dan Cadman and Jessica Vaughan -- Faith communities and campuses seek to become refuges for immigrants / Rebekah Barber -- What the media won't tell you about illegal immigration and criminal activity / Hans A. von Spakovsky and Grant Strobl -- Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes / Lauren Carasik -- Immigrants are more likely to be incarcerated / Maura Ewing -- Sanctuary cities threaten public safety / Jessica Vaughan -- Donald Trump tried to punish sanctuary cities / Alice Miranda Ollstein -- Giving illegal immigrants refuge is unfair to those who came here legally / James Simpson -- Illegal immigrants were desperate to flee their conditions / Chris Welzenbach -- Sanctuary cities allow terrorist to enter the United States easily / Steven A. Camarota -- Cities that are terrorist targets still welcome immigrants / Elizabeth Ross -- Sanctuary cities are a truly democratic invention / Katherine Culliton-González and Joanna E. Cuevas Ingram -- Executive orders banning sanctuary cities work against democracy / David Trilling -- Sanctuary cities may risk losing federal funding / Nathan Kasai and Sarah Trumble -- Losing federal funding can adversely affect residents of sanctuary cities / Shefali Luthra -- Becoming american / Stanley Renshon -- Sanctuary cities? : that's a constitutional no / Hans A. von Spakovsky

Sanctuary policies first emerged in the 1980s as a response to the Reagan administration's denial of asylum claims for refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador. In response to a growing refugee crisis, and the fear that many of those who were being denied asylum faced persecution and death in their country of origin, churches and synagogues began offering "sanctuary" to refugees from these countries, based on ancient religious tradition. The Sanctuary Movement, as it came to be known, led a number of cities to adopt city resolutions in solidarity beginning in 1983, marking the birth of the sanctuary city. These policies forbade local officials from inquiring into the immigration status of residents and often criticized the Reagan administration's refugee policies. Today, the scope of sanctuary policies has expanded, and they may not only bar local officials from collecting information on immigration status, but also include a refusal to honor immigration detainers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which are issued by ICE to request that local authorities hold immigrants until they can be taken into federal custody for deportation proceedings. Most sanctuary policies in the United States were passed during three periods. The first ran from 1983 to 1989, with the policies passed in response to the Central American refugee crisis. The September 11 attacks and the subsequent immigration crackdown and passage of policies like Secure Communities would lead to more policies being passed between 2001 and 2012. Lastly, the presidency of Donald Trump led to more declarations based on the administration's crackdown on undocumented immigration. At the same time, an anti-sanctuary movement materialized for the first time at both the federal and state level that sought to either prevent further declarations or to attach penalties to sanctuary policies. One example is Texas's SB 4, which in 2017 introduced state-wide bans on these policies and allows for fines and removal from office for officials who do not comply with federal immigration policy. The Trump administration itself sought to deny federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions, something that had been floated in the past by Republican presidential candidates like Fred Thompson but had never been attempted by previous administrations. The rhetoric of the Trump administration on sanctuary policies, as well as the media coverage of the 2015 accidental shooting of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant led to more coverage of the topic than at any other point in history. This in turn led to increased scholarship, which continues, as researchers look to connect the Sanctuary Movement to modern sanctuary cities; to examine the effects of media framing of these policies; to analyze the causes of public support or opposition; to explore the legality of sanctuary and anti-sanctuary legislation; and to document the effects these policies have on the incorporation of immigrant communities and crime rates in sanctuary cities.

In the wake of President Trump's election, a growing number of local jurisdictions around the country have sought to disentangle their criminal justice apparatus from federal immigration enforcement efforts. These localities have embraced a series of reforms that attempt to ensure immigrants are not deported when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. The Trump administration has labeled these jurisdictions "sanctuary cities" and vowed to "end" them by, among other things, attempting to cut off their federal funding. This Article is a collaborative project authored by law professors specializing in the intersection between immigration and criminal law. In it, we set forth the central features of the Trump administration's mass deportation plans and its campaign to "crack down" on sanctuary cities. We then outline the diverse ways in which localities have sought to protect their residents by refusing to participate in the Trump immigration agenda. Such initiatives include declining to honor immigration detainers, precluding participation in joint operations with the federal government, and preventing immigration agents from accessing local jails. Finally, we analyze the legal and policy justifications that local jurisdictions have advanced. Our examination reveals important insights for how sanctuary cities are understood and preserved in the age of Trump.

What are sanctuary cities? What are the political stakes? The literature provides inadequate answers. Liberal migration theorists offer few insights into sanctuary city politics. Critical migration scholars primarily address the relationship between sanctuary cities and political activism, a small part of the phenomenon. The historical literature examines continuities between 1970s sanctuary church activism and contemporary sanctuary cities, confusing what is essential to sanctuary churches and what is only sometimes associated with sanctuary cities. Together these approaches obscure more than they reveal. This article suggests a republican account of sanctuary cities. Reconstructing American migration politics from the colonial era onward shows that sanctuary cities have roots in both the colonial republican revolt and the republican principle of freedom as nondomination. That reconstruction reveals much about both sanctuary cities and the federal government's long-running assault on them. The resulting robust analytical framework clarifies what is at stake in the politics of sanctuary cities: federal sovereignty in migration politics specifically and republican liberty in migration politics generally.

"Though sanctuary cities have recently become a significant aspect of the immigration debate as a result of the Trump administration's stricter immigration policies, sanctuary cities have existed in the US since the 1980s and for centuries in countries around the world. However, the precise definition and legal standing of sanctuary cities in today's context is often foggy. The viewpoints in this volume discuss the timely issue of sanctuary cities from a variety of angles while also exploring the economic, cultural, political, and moral aspects of asylum and immigration"--

What are sanctuary cities? What are the political stakes? The literature provides inadequate answers. Liberal migration theorists offer few insights into sanctuary city politics. Critical migration scholars primarily address the relationship between sanctuary cities and political activism, a small part of the phenomenon. The historical literature examines continuities between 1970s sanctuary church activism and contemporary sanctuary cities, confusing what is essential to sanctuary churches and what is only sometimes associated with sanctuary cities. Together these approaches obscure more than they reveal. This article suggests a republican account of sanctuary cities. Reconstructing American migration politics from the colonial era onward shows that sanctuary cities have roots in both the colonial republican revolt and the republican principle of freedom as nondomination. That reconstruction reveals much about both sanctuary cities and the federal government's long-running assault on them. The resulting robust analytical framework clarifies what is at stake in the politics of sanctuary cities: federal sovereignty in migration politics specifically and republican liberty in migration politics generally.

Sanctuary Cities nennen sich in den USA und Kanada Städte, die sich weigern, an der Abschiebungspolitik des Bundesstaates mitzuwirken. Die Idee dazu etablierte sich in den 80er Jahren in Nordamerika und verbreitete sich weiter nach Großbritannien, wo sich verschiedene Städte zusammengeschlossen haben, die die Kultur der Gastfreundschaft und des Willkommens beleben möchten und das Ziel haben, dass sich geflüchtete Menschen dort sicher fühlen. Nun gründen sich auch in deutschen Städten Initiativen, die sich Ähnliches für ihre Kommunen wünschen.

Sanctuary cities, or localities where officials are prohibited from inquiring into immigration status, have become a part of the broader debate on undocumented immigration in the United States. Despite the increasing amount of coverage sanctuary policies receive, the American public knows little about these policies. In this text, Loren Collingwood and Benjamin Gonzalez O'Brien delve into the history, media coverage, effects, and public opinion on these sanctuary policies in the hope of helping readers reach an informed decision regarding them.

AbstractSanctuary cities in the USA, UK, and Canada aim to accommodate illegalized migrants and refugees in their communities. The concept of the "sanctuary city," however, is highly ambiguous: it refers to a variety of different policies and practices, and focuses on variable populations in different national contexts. In this article, I examine the international literature to show how urban sanctuary policies and practices differ between national contexts and assess whether there are common features of sanctuary cities. I uncover legal, discursive, identity‐formative, and scalar aspects of urban sanctuary policies and practices. These aspects assemble in ways that differ between countries. The article concludes by raising important practical and theoretical questions about urban sanctuary.