# data[].attributes.body
There was a shooting death in San Francisco in 2015 which has brought debates to the news about sanctuary cities. These debates are questioning whether the illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported for entering the country illegally. With the risk of criminals like this, it is unethical to allow these criminals to remain in the United States illegally.

# data[].attributes.body
SNL-comedy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Saturday Night Live created an ad perfect for liberals upset over the 2016 election results. Check it out and see if you don't laugh out loud:

Ericka Andersen - Ericka Andersen is a freelance writer and the digital-marketing director at the Independent Women's Forum. Her first book,Leaving Cloud 9: The True Story of a Life Resurrected From the Ashes of Poverty, Trauma and Mental Illness, is available for pre-order.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH: SNL's Fake Ad for Sanctuary City For Liberals Is Actually Perfect | National Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Saturday Night Live created an ad perfect for liberals upset over the 2016 election results. Check it out and see if you don't laugh out loud: https://www.youtube.com/embed/vKOb-kmOgpI

# data[].attributes.body
In sanctuary cities, they protect undocumented immigrants. This cartoon portrays that the people in sanctuary cities do not care that these immigrants are illegal.

# data[].attributes.body
op-ed article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Several cities and public universities have vowed to resist President-elect Donald Trump's plan to deport undocumented criminals by doubling down on sanctuary policies. In response, Trump has pledged to curtail federal funding for sanctuary providers. Activists, predictably, are crying foul, and some legal scholars, such as Harvard's Noah Feldman, have even claimed that such a response would be unconstitutional.

But whatever one thinks about Trump's strategy, it almost certainly would pass muster at the Supreme Court.

This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities - because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and "did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes," it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

Sanctuary policies create Balkanization on an issue with important foreign policy implications and corresponding potential for diplomatic embarrassment.

It's true that cities such as Los Angeles instruct city employees not to ask about immigration status, but they may still have access to that information. Under California law, for example, driver's licenses issued to immigrants in the country illegally contain prominent distinguishing language stating, "federal limits apply." Indeed, Congress could specify that licenses issued to immigrants in the country illegally must include a distinguishing feature, or they won't be accepted for federal purposes, such as TSA airport security. Congress already has enacted the Real ID Act, which mandates that driver's licenses display certain details.

A separate constitutional doctrine, the anti-coercion doctrine, likewise won't shield sanctuaries. This doctrine holds that while Congress may impose conditions on receipt of federal funds, it cannot coerce states into accepting those conditions.

In the 1980s, Congress passed a law withholding 5% of highway funds from any state that refused to adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. The Supreme Court, in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), upheld it. Because highway funds are expended - in part - to ensure safe travel, the court reasoned that raising the drinking age was "relevant to the federal interest in the project and the overall objectives thereof." More significantly, withholding 5% of federal funds wasn't coercive because while it represented a loss of $615 million dollars, it was only 0.19% of states' total budgets.

Congress certainly could meet these standards. Many federal programs provide billions to universities and state and local law enforcement. Provided the percentage withheld didn't approach the 20% threshold, it should be constitutional. As with the highway funds in South Dakota, these programs are designed in part to improve safety of campuses and communities. This goal would be furthered by withholding funds from cities and universities that provide sanctuary for criminals present in the country illegally. Such individuals, by definition, not only are unvetted by the federal government, but have committed crimes while here.

Whatever one's view of the best immigration policy, it should be uniform. Some, including the Washington Post's editorial board, have suggested that Congress should give sanctuary cities flexibility to report only those who've committed the most serious violent offenses. But precisely which criminals should be subject to deportation requires resolution by Congress, not each city or university.

David Rivkin and Elizabeth Price Foley practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington, D.C. Rivkin served at the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel's office during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. Foley is also a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can Trump cut off funds for sanctuary cities? The Constitution says yes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Several cities and public universities have vowed to resist President-elect Donald Trump's plan to deport undocumented criminals by doubling down on sanctuary policies. In response, Trump has pledged to curtail federal funding for sanctuary providers. Activists, predictably, are crying foul, and some legal scholars, such as Harvard's Noah Feldman, have even claimed that such a response would be unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
op-ed article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If the next president's immigration agenda includes a pitched battle over "sanctuary" cities, a term Donald Trump uses with disgust, the proper response from places like New York will be: Bring it on.

The word "sanctuary" as Mr. Trump deploys it - a place where immigrant criminals run amok, shielded from the long arm of federal law - is grossly misleading, because cities with "sanctuary" policies cannot obstruct federal enforcement and do not try to. Instead, they do what they can to welcome and support immigrants, including the unauthorized, and choose not to participate in deportation crackdowns they see as unjust, self-defeating and harmful to public safety.

New York City wears that kind of "sanctuary" label proudly. As California considers bold steps to shield its residents from a possible Trump immigration assault, the New York City Council has already built its own strong web of protections. A groundbreaking City Council program has provided free legal representation for children who fled violence in Central America and arrived unaccompanied at the border. Of 1,265 cases accepted under the program, 72 children were granted asylum and 55 obtained lawful permanent residency. The Council has expanded health and legal services in immigrant communities. And it passed bills to keep federal immigration agents out of the Rikers Island jails, and to forbid city police and corrections officers from detaining suspects for deportation, unless there is a judge's warrant.

Mayor Bill de Blasio, who signed both bills, has also promised since the election to defend immigrant residents from other possible threats, like a registry of Muslims and a roundup of unauthorized immigrants. The city will stop saving the personal records of residents who apply for its municipal ID card, to prevent the data from being abused for a deportation purge.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has echoed these sentiments, promising, though without specifics, that New York State will begin expanding legal assistance for immigrants in the coming year. The effort will be welcome should Mr. Trump begin to lower the boom on unauthorized immigrants - though it's impossible to know the details of what he will do, given the volatility and imprecision of his many immigration-related threats and promises.

Whatever forms the purge takes, the sanctuary forces will have to be resolute in opposition. One good thing: New York and its allies in cities across the country, in governments, schools and churches, will have the public on their side. A recent Global Strategy Group poll found that Americans oppose, 58 percent to 28 percent, repealing President Obama's DACA program, which shields the young immigrants called Dreamers from deportation. A Quinnipiac poll taken after the election found that Americans strongly support - 72 percent to 25 percent - allowing unauthorized immigrants to stay, with 60 percent supporting a path to citizenship. This support is higher than at any point in the four years it has been asking the question, Quinnipiac said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the next president's immigration agenda includes a pitched battle over "sanctuary" cities, a term Donald Trump uses with disgust, the proper response from places like New York will be: Bring it on.

# data[].attributes.body
stakeholders

# data[].attributes.body
stakeholders

# data[].attributes.body
stakeholders

# data[].attributes.body
stakeholders

# data[].attributes.body
video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Horrific crime in Philadelphia reignites illegal immigration debate; Senator Pat Toomey reacts on 'The O'Reilly Factor'

# data[].attributes.body
blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AT A press conference two days after Donald Trump was elected president, Bill de Blasio, New York's mayor, sought to assuage the fears of his city's undocumented residents. "We are not going to sacrifice a half-million people who live amongst us, who are part of our communities, whose family members and loved ones happen to be people in many cases who are either permanent residents or citizens-we're not going to tear families apart." During his campaign, Mr Trump vowed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants from America. The leaders of New York and several other "sanctuary" cities such as Seattle, Chicago and San Francisco (pictured) insist they will resist any such dragnet. What is a sanctuary city?

There is no specific legal definition for what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction but the term is widely used to refer to American cities, counties or states that protect undocumented immigrants from deportation by limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Some decline to use city or state tax dollars to enforce federal immigration laws. Many prohibit local officials from asking people about their immigration status. Sanctuary policies can be mandated expressly by law or practiced unofficially. Proponents say they help ensure that undocumented immigrants don't avoid reporting crimes, seeking healthcare and enrolling in schools for fear of deportation. Los Angeles was the first to institute such policies in 1979 when the city's police department forbade officers from detaining people with the objective of finding out their immigration status. An unofficial tally by the Centre for Immigration Studies, a non-profit organisation that studies immigration, categorises some 300 cities, counties and states as sanctuary jurisdictions, including the cities of New Orleans and Boston, and the entire states of California, Connecticut, New Mexico and Colorado.
Get our daily newsletter
Scrutiny of sanctuary jurisdictions intensified last July after a young American woman was shot in San Francisco by a man who was in the United States illegally, had seven previous felony convictions and had already been deported five times. In a campaign speech in August, shortly after the shooting, Mr Trump vowed to block funding to areas deemed uncooperative with federal immigration authorities. "We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths," he promised."[They] will not receive taxpayer dollars." Reince Priebus, Mr Trump's chief of staff, confirmed in a television interview on November 20th that the administration intends to make good on Mr Trump's campaign vow. If the administration proceeds with cuts, the results could be dire: according to CNN, New York alone could lose $10.4bn in funding for social services and other municipal programs.

Mr de Blasio called Mr Trump's threat to cut funding for sanctuary areas "dangerous" but cast doubts on whether the president-elect would actually follow through. Rahm Emanuel, Chicago's mayor, is also sceptical: "I don't believe they'll do it, because that would mean every major city in the United States would be targeted," he reasoned. "They will make a choice that this is not the battle they want to take on because they have bigger fish to fry." Slashing funding is the surest way to attack sanctuary areas; combatting them legally could prove more difficult. A recent court ruling in Illinois deemed it unconstitutional for federal officials to ask local jails to detain suspected undocumented immigrants without a warrant. Such challenges could make it difficult for the Trump administration to follow through on its threats. Indeed Mr Trump was conspicuously silent on deportation in a YouTube address on November 21st in which he laid out his policy agenda for the first 100 days of his presidency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AT A press conference two days after Donald Trump was elected president, Bill de Blasio, New York's mayor, sought to assuage the fears of his city's undocumented residents.

# data[].attributes.body
graph

# data[].attributes.body
twitter post

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Group behind #StopSanctuaryCities (@FAIRImmigration) has ugly, hateful record https://t.co/X2Rx0qGnbl pic.twitter.com/CFL1ILyLVD
— Southern Poverty Law Center (@splcenter) January 19, 2017

# data[].attributes.body
picture

# data[].attributes.body
picture

# data[].attributes.body
picture

# data[].attributes.body
picture

# data[].attributes.body
Mayor, of murder capital USA, Rahm Emanuel says to illegal immigrants, you are safe to break the law in Chicago.

# data[].attributes.body
newspaper article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ron Ewart -- Sanctuary Cities Slap Every Lawful American In The Face

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ron Ewart, a nationally known author and speaker on freedom and property rights issues and author of this weekly column, "In Defense of Rural America". Ron is the president of the National Association of Rural Landowners (NARLO) (www.narlo.org), a non-profit corporation headquartered in Washington State, acting as an advocate and consultant for urban and rural landowners.

# data[].attributes.body
newspaper article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When I publicly expressed my support for Donald Trump during the Republican primaries, I was one of the very first members of Congress to do so. I was impressed by his frank assessment of the troubles facing our country, and most importantly, his willingness to take on the issue of illegal immigration. It is clear that those of us who want to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws will now have an ally in the White House.

My firm stance against illegal immigration is likely why I was elected to Congress in the first place. While mayor of Hazleton, Pa., I became known as the first mayor in the country to pass a local ordinance which cracked down on landlords and businesses that rented to or hired illegal immigrants. I have authored, co-sponsored, or supported any number of bills in Congress dealing with illegal immigration, but one issue in particular stands out as being particularly troublesome: sanctuary cities. I am gratified to know that President Trump Donald John Trump 20 weeks out from midterms, Dems and GOP brace for surprises Sessions responds to Nazi comparisons: 'They were keeping the Jews from leaving' Kim Jong Un to visit Beijing this week MORE shares my view that local jurisdictions should not be able to thumb their noses at our immigration officials.

It was more than 10 years ago when the problem of sanctuary cities had a direct impact on our small town of Hazleton. I was still mayor in 2006 when a 29-year-old city man, Derek Kichline, a father of three, was murdered in front of his own house by an illegal alien. The killer was a habitual criminal who had been arrested and released a number of times, including by the known sanctuary city of New York. It was then that I began what has been, at times, a very lonely crusade against illegal immigration and policies that condone or encourage such lawless behavior.

When I got to Congress in 2011, the very first piece of legislation I introduced was the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act, which would cut off all funding for at least one year to jurisdictions that resist or ban enforcement of federal immigration laws, or refuse to cooperate with immigration officials. The attorney general would compile an annual list of such cities and issue a report on any particular state or locality upon request from a member of Congress. A state or local government would only regain federal funding eligibility after the attorney general certified that its laws and policies were in compliance with federal immigration statutes. There was not the political will in Congress to advance the bill in 2011, and it never made is way out of committee.

In July of 2015, the nation again saw the inevitable result of sanctuary cities policies when 32-year-old Kate Steinle was murdered while walking with her father in the sanctuary city of San Francisco. The man who killed her with a stolen gun was an illegal immigrant with seven felonies, who had previously been deported five times. About a week later, I reintroduced my legislation during the brief period of time when there was heightened public awareness of the sanctuary cities scourge. Again, sadly, there was not the will in Congress to pass the bill.

So as we open the 115th Congress, I have introduced the legislation once again, judging that the landscape has changed following a national election in which combating illegal immigration was a central theme. President-elect Trump's strong opposition to sanctuary cities is a good indicator that we have a better chance for success than we ever have before. Throughout the campaign and following his victory, President-elect Trump and I discussed our shared goals in this area. This time, I believe, we can find the will in Congress to pass the bill.

One of the principal duties of the government is to protect its citizens, and the idea of sanctuary cities runs completely counter to that responsibility. When I first introduced my sanctuary cities bill in 2011, there were just about 80 sanctuary cities across the country. Today, just six years later, there are more than 300. Too many mayors and local governments think that they are above federal law and place their own ideology ahead of the safety of their residents. My bill will stop that practice by saying to these sanctuary cities, "If you refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, you will lose your federal funding." To me, it is simply common sense. And thankfully we now have a president who agrees.
Rep. Barletta is a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When I publicly expressed my support for Donald Trump during the Republican primaries, I was one of the very first members of Congress to do so. I was impressed by his frank assessment of the troubles facing our country, and most importantly, his willingness to take on the issue of illegal immigration.

# data[].attributes.headline
Sanctuary Cities prepare to resist Trump deportations

# data[].attributes.subject
Sanctuary Cities prepare to resist Trump deportations

# data[].attributes.body
newspaper article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The phones haven't stopped ringing at The Resurrection Project since 8 November, when Donald J. Trump was elected the next president of the United States.

"People are just terrified," says Erendira Rendon, national projects director for this community-based organisation in Pilsen, a lively, majority-Hispanic neighbourhood on Chicago's Lower West Side.

Many residents fear the incoming president - who takes office on Friday - will make good on his campaign promise to deport the roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the US. Many remember all too well the mass workplace raids carried out nationwide during former president George W. Bush's second term: highly militarised, coordinated sweeps that saw tens of thousands of illegal immigrant workers arrested and deported.

To prepare for the possibility of a similar or even more wide-ranging crackdown, The Resurrection Project has been hosting "know your rights" workshops. Sessions start with a breathing exercise to ease people's anxieties. Then the questions begin: "What should I do if federal immigration agents come to my home? To my workplace? Is it safe for me to renew my DACA (President Barack Obama's temporary amnesty for undocumented young people whose parents brought them to the US as children)?"

"We are operating under the assumption that Trump is going to do what he has promised to do, which is a massive deportation of two to three million people immediately," says Rendon, herself a 31-year-old DACA beneficiary.

While campaigning, Trump pledged to end DACA, which Obama introduced by executive order in 2012. Though not a path to citizenship, it gives more than 740,000 undocumented youth a temporary reprieve from deportation.

Local defence

The saving grace for people like Rendon could be the city they happen to live in. Now, more than ever, the fight to help undocumented immigrants and shield them from deportation has shifted to the local level. Cities like Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, Philadelphia, and New York, along with counties and college campuses nationwide, are pledging to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities and become "sanctuaries" for those facing deportation.

On the campaign trail, Trump railed against so-called "sanctuary cities", pointing to the July 2015 case of a Mexican man who shot and killed a woman in San Francisco. The man had seven previous felony convictions and had already been deported five times. But prior to the shooting, local police had declined to detain him on behalf of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency without court approval - a key way by which sanctuary cities can avoid assisting federal officials.

Trump has promised to "end sanctuary cities" in his first 100 days in office by revoking their federal funding. Several cities, particularly their law enforcement agencies, stand to lose tens of millions of dollars in annual grants from the federal justice department if he follows through. Local police rely on these grants for new hires and special programmes for drug-abusers and domestic violence victims. Nearly $29 million is at stake in Chicago.

Even so, since the election, many cities have strengthened laws prohibiting local officials from asking people about their immigration status. Others, including Chicago, are rolling out municipal identification cards so that undocumented residents can more easily access public services such as healthcare and schools.

Mayors are also setting aside funds to pay for lawyers to defend people in federal deportation proceedings. In the US, immigrants facing deportation have no automatic right to legal counsel. Chicago, home to some 150,000 undocumented residents, recently announced a $1.3 million legal aid fund, while Los Angeles has pledged $10 million through a public-private partnership. New York City already guaranteed representation to immigrant detainees via a $6 million programme created in 2013.

"I want them to know that the city of Chicago - your children, you and your family - are safe, secure and supported," Mayor Rahm Emanuel said in announcing his city's legal aid fund last month.

Part of the fund is being channelled to The Resurrection Project to train some 200 "community navigators" to assist people with immigration questions. The remaining $750,000 has gone to the Chicago-based National Immigrant Justice Center to hire nine staff who will represent at least 1,000 cases over the next year.

Legally flaky

The sanctuary city concept is not new. In Chicago, it dates back to 1985 when then-mayor Harold Washington issued an executive order that forbade city agencies from asking about the immigration status of anyone seeking city services.

Hundreds of US jurisdictions, primarily counties, have sanctuary policies including entire states such as California, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Even in conservative states, such laws enjoy the support of law enforcement agencies because they maintain safety and trust within communities: crime victims and witnesses who may be undocumented are far less likely to cooperate with local police if they think they'll be deported.

But many immigration experts warn that the term "sanctuary" is misleading, conjuring up an image of cities hiding their residents from federal agents. This is not the case, as ICE can round up undocumented immigrants anywhere providing they have a warrant.

"Designating a locality or campus as a 'sanctuary' does not mean anything legally," says Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration attorney and Cornell Law School professor. "It's a symbolic comfort to students or residents that local police won't actively tell immigration officials if there's an undocumented individual on campus, for example."

Some cities and universities have rejected the "sanctuary" label, opting instead for the term "welcoming".

Although the sanctuary city movement has gained momentum since Trump's election, piecemeal regulations and enforcement mean the levels of support available to undocumented immigrants differ significantly from one jurisdiction to another.

Rendon would know. Her parents brought her to the US with them from Oaxaca, Mexico when she was four years old. This means she's covered by DACA but her parents are still undocumented. They also live in a suburb northwest of Chicago that has no sanctuary laws.

"For myself, I'm young - I know I can figure it out," Rendon says. "But my parents are 60 years old and getting older. What is going to happen to them? They're always scared, always worried, always under a lot of pressure."

Growing backlog

Despite such fears, it's still unclear just how Trump could scale up deportations. He has pledged to prioritise convicted criminals, but immigration experts say there aren't nearly enough of those to reach Trump's stated two to three million target.

Obama oversaw the removal of 2.5 million immigrants during his eight years in office - more than any other president. Significantly increasing the current pace of deportations would mean addressing the record backlog at immigration courts. An individual facing deportation must go before an immigration court before a judge will order their removal, but there are 520,000 pending cases nationwide, including more than 23,000 in Illinois State, where Chicago is located. Hearings are often scheduled three years in advance.

In sanctuary cities, where immigrants facing deportation can access legal aid and fight a deportation decision, the backlog is likely to grow further.

Deporting people is also expensive. At an average cost of $10,000 per deportee, Trump would need to ask Congress to approve $20 billion to $30 billion to hit his target, which doesn't even include the billions he'll need to build that " big, beautiful wall".

Trump's promise to swiftly deport such large numbers nevertheless has advocates worried.

"Enforcement operations are messy, and what's happened in the past is that a lot of bystanders like family and neighbours get caught up [and deported as well], even if the target is just one person," says Heidi Altman, policy director for the National Immigrant Justice Center.

"We stand behind all immigrants, including those involved in the criminal justice system. Deportation is often a vastly disproportionate consequence for their actions."
(TOP PHOTO: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrest suspects during a raid. Photo Courtesy of ICE)
tk/ks/ag

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"Sanctuary cities" get ready to resist Trump deportations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The phones haven't stopped ringing at The Resurrection Project since 8 November, when Donald J. Trump was elected the next president of the United States. "People are just terrified," says Erendira Rendon, national projects director for this community-based organisation in Pilsen, a lively, majority-Hispanic neighbourhood on Chicago's Lower West Side.

# data[].attributes.body
video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Liberal Sanctuary Cities Could Lose Their Federal Funds in Trump Administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is a Sanctuary City? It's Not What They've Been Telling You

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some people have the impression that a sanctuary city is a place where local government resources are being used to not only actively block federal immigration enforcement but also to actively harbor and protect people who've violated federal immigration laws. But this couldn't be further from the truth.

# data[].attributes.body
video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented."

By Miriam Valverde on Monday, November 28th, 2016 at 1:47 p.m.

Mayors across America are doubling down on their cities' decisions to serve as a "sanctuary" for immigrants living in the country illegally, despite President-elect Donald Trump's promise to cut federal funding.

Javier Gonzales, mayor of Santa Fe, N.M., appeared on Fox News recently defending his city's stance to not assist federal officials with immigration enforcement.

Megyn Kelly, host of Fox News' The Kelly File, asked Gonzales about criticism directed at cities like Santa Fe, claiming that "sanctuary cities" attract criminals. Gonzales said his city prioritizes going after people who commit violent crimes, regardless of their immigration status.

There's also evidence that sanctuary cities aren't a magnet for crime, he said.

"Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented," Gonzales said Nov. 16.
'Sanctuary cities'
Is that true?

Despite the name, a sanctuary city is not always a city, it can be a town, county or other jurisdiction. There isn't a federal law defining sanctuary locations, but the term is generally applied to places that have policies or ordinances limiting their assistance to federal immigration authorities who seek to apprehend and deport immigrants in the country illegally.

The modern-day sanctuary concept stems from the 1980s when churches opened their doors to shelter Central Americans who fled violence in their countries and lived illegally in the United States, fearing deportation.

The New Sanctuary Movement rolled out in 2007 as places of worship across the country became a refuge for immigrants facing deportation. There are at least 50 congregations across the United States offering sanctuary.

Churches, schools, hospitals and public demonstrations such as rallies and parades are considered by immigration officials as sensitive locations, where enforcement actions are generally avoided but can take place with approval from a supervisor or under "exigent circumstances."

The exact number of jurisdictions deemed sanctuary cities fluctuates as places adopt or abandon policies. The specifics of the policies also vary from place to place. The mayor of New Orleans, for instance, says the term "sanctuary city" does not apply to his city, but some critics say it has practices that parallel policies in other places that openly embrace the title, the Times-Picayune reported.

Lena Graber, a special projects attorney for the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, estimated there are more than 500 counties and 38 cities with policies not to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Federal laws say state and local governments or officers may not prohibit the maintenance or exchange of individuals' immigration records with other local, state or federal entities, according to a 2009 Congressional Research Service report. However, if jurisdictions don't ask individuals about their immigration status, then they don't have the information that could potentially be kept and shared, the report said.

Supporters of sanctuary cities say not questioning people about their immigration status builds trust between police and the community, encouraging residents to report crime.

If an undocumented immigrant gets arrested for a non-immigration offense, they can still be charged, tried and convicted for that crime, Graber said.

Opponents contend that sanctuary cities attract illegal immigration and undermine enforcement of the law.
What studies show
Any crime by someone in the country illegally is a crime that could have been avoided by having removed that person, said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to reduce immigration levels.

The Santa Fe mayor's office sent over multiple studies that found immigrants are less prone to commit crime than people born in the United States. They also highlighted a report by the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigrant group, saying that held true for immigrants here legally and illegally.

But there isn't a lot of research specific to sanctuary cities and their impact on crime, experts said.

Sanctuary ordinances have been around for more than 30 years, but only until recently have social scientists been able to study their effect on crime rates, said Elizabeth F. Cohen, an associate professor of political science at Syracuse University.

A 2009 study out of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law cites Austin, Texas, as an example where cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement led to an increase in crime reporting and lower crime levels. Other examples of decreases in crime due to immigrant-friendly policies are also cited in this 2012 study.

Research also suggests that crime reporting -- especially in communities with a high proportion of immigrants -- is very likely negatively impacted when immigration enforcement practices are carried out by local officials, said Charis E. Kubrin, a criminology professor at University of California, Irvine.

A 2014 study by collaborators at University of Chicago and New York University on whether the immigration enforcement program known as Secure Communities reduced crime showed there was no significant rise in crime in sanctuary cities during the program's rollout, Cohen said. Under the program (which has been replaced), when someone was booked into a police station or jail, that person's information was sent to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, ultimately to figure out the person's immigration record.

More recently, researchers at the University of California at Riverside and Highline College found sanctuary policies do not affect crime rates either way.

The study included analysis of violent crime, property crime and rape.

"Sanctuary policies in terms of leading to crime do not appear to be a problem," the October 2016 study said. "In fact ... almost all research that assesses links between immigration and criminality find an inverse relationship."

Trump campaigned against sanctuary policies by bringing up incidents of undocumented immigrants in these cities committing violent crimes, such as the alleged shooting by a Mexican national of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco. But we did not turn up evidence of sanctuary cities leading to an increase in crime.

Qualitative information on sanctuary practices suggests they are beneficial to criminal law enforcement practices, said Phil Torrey, a lecturer on law with the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program and supervising attorney for the Harvard Immigration Project.
Our ruling
A rise in crime in a sanctuary city could be caused by factors unrelated to that city's undocumented population, Torrey said. For instance, a city's rising population can account for increased overall criminal arrests, he said.

Gonzales said, "Study after study have shown that sanctuary cities do not lead to an increase in crime because of the presence of people that are undocumented."

The data behind Gonzales' point about sanctuary cities is not conclusive or as extensive as he described. However, a recent study by academic researchers found that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates.

Other studies have found a reduction in crime as a result of cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Scholars also say immigrants, including those in the country illegally, are less likely to commit crimes than the native-born population.
https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/ca7ac643-07ba-4de2-afae-cf0e5e209aef
Gonzales' statement overstates the breadth of research on this topic but is on the right track. We rate the claim Half True.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is crime worse in sanctuary cities? Not really

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mayors across America are doubling down on their cities’ decisions to serve as a "sanctuary" for immigrants living in the country illegally, despite President-elect Donald Trump’s promise to cut federal funding. Javier Gonzales, mayor of Santa Fe, N.M., appeared on Fox News recently defending his city’s stance to not assist federal officials with immigration enforcement.

# data[].attributes.body
academic source

# data[].attributes.body
academic source

# data[].attributes.body
newspaper article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President-elect Donald Trump swept to the White House promising to clamp down on illegal immigration and so-called "sanctuary cities" like Minneapolis and St. Paul whose leaders vow not to act as local immigration enforcers.

Republicans around the country - including the newly empowered GOP majorities in the Minnesota Legislature - have followed suit, threatening to withhold government aid from cities that decline to work with federal immigration authorities and represent themselves as safe havens against deportation.

"Cities don't get to choose a cafeteria-style selection of laws that they will enforce and they won't enforce," said Sen. David Osmek, R-Mound, who sits on the Local Government Committee.

"If they don't want to follow the laws, then I don't think they should get the taxpayers' money," he said.

Statements like these have some local government officials on edge. They're wedged between increasingly diverse, liberal-leaning constituents opposed to hard-line immigration rhetoric from Trump and other Republicans and the tough decisions that would follow losing scarce state and federal dollars for policing and other local services.

After Trump won the election, Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges released a statement affirming the city's policy on immigration: "I will continue to stand by and fight for immigrants in Minneapolis regardless of President-elect Trump's threats," she said.

The sharp, clear rhetoric on both sides masks a more complex reality: The term "sanctuary city" has no legal meaning. And both advocates and opponents of stricter immigration enforcement agree that undocumented immigrants in cities like Minneapolis and St. Paul should realize the cities' ordinances don't actually provide much sanctuary.

Regardless, cities and immigrant rights groups are steeling themselves for a crackdown.

More than a decade ago, both Minneapolis and St. Paul enacted "separation ordinances," which means city employees - including police - do not ask about immigration status. City leaders argue the ordinances encourage crime victims and witnesses to come forward regardless of immigration status.

"St. Paul's separation ordinance does not defy immigration law, but simply emphasizes the separate role of local law enforcement from federal immigration enforcement," St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman said in a statement to the Star Tribune. "While they may assist federal officers in the investigation of criminal activity involving someone who may also be violating federal civil immigration laws, our police officers are not [ICE] agents," he said, referring to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

That classifies Minneapolis and St. Paul as "don't ask" cities, said Virgil Wiebe, professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law. This is distinct from and milder than "don't tell" jurisdictions like San Francisco, which limits employees from working with federal immigration officials.

For anyone arrested, however, there's no sanctuary from federal immigration enforcement.

A suspect arrested in Minneapolis, for instance, is brought to Hennepin County jail. He or she is photographed, fingerprinted and questioned about immigration status. Biometric information is sent to a state repository, which then goes on to the FBI, which forwards relevant data to the Department of Homeland Security, making its way back to the local ICE office within 30 minutes, said Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek. He runs the county jail, which books 40,000 inmates from all over the county every year.

"It's just rhetoric," Stanek said of cities' declaring themselves sanctuaries.

Still, Stanek caught the attention of immigration hard-liners after a 2014 decision by the sheriff and other local officials to release inmates after they have been adjudicated, rather than holding them at the request of ICE.

Stanek and sheriffs around the country faced potential litigation because, by holding the detainees without a warrant, authorities were violating Fourth Amendment rights, lawyers for detainees argued.

Wiebe, the St. Thomas law professor who has represented detainees around the state, endorsed the move: "Rather than call Hennepin County a sanctuary county, it's a Fourth Amendment county," he said.

Stanek said he still holds detainees if ordered to by a judge or as emergency circumstances require.

Rep. Duane Quam, R-Byron, has already introduced a bill that would force local officials to hold detainees at the request of ICE.

Trump, Congress and the Legislature could also try to force cities to use their police departments to enforce immigration law, using the threat of lost funding as leverage.

Minneapolis is set to receive nearly $78 million in local government aid from the Legislature in 2017, while St. Paul will receive $62 million, according to Minnesota Management and Budget.

Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, who chairs a property tax committee that has jurisdiction over local government aid, said the committee would take a hard look at local aid, targeting both wasteful spending and local officials "breaking or ignoring federal law."

North Carolina passed a law in 2015 that sought to clamp down on sanctuary cities. Former Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty attempted similar measures during his tenure but lacked support from the Legislature.

One thing is certain: If and when Republican lawmakers wade into immigration politics, they'll get a fight.

"The Bible is clear," said JaNae Bates, spokeswoman for progressive faith-based group ISAIAH and a United Church of Christ minister.

"We are to be welcoming, open to the stranger, and we stand with city and county leaders and will do what we can to protect everyone in our community, including citizens and immigrants - documented and undocumented alike," she said.

Adam Belz contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State's GOP legislators take aim at 'sanctuary city' policies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President-elect Donald Trump swept to the White House promising to clamp down on illegal immigration and so-called "sanctuary cities" like Minneapolis and St. Paul whose leaders vow not to act as local immigration enforcers.