Statements and actions by public official can indicate a community's unwritten policy too. Did a mayor of a town hire illegal alien day laborers for a city project? Does a mayor, city administrator, or other city official complain to the press that illegal aliens in their community should not be subject to raids or arrests by ICE? Does a city council adopt a resolution in opposition to the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws? Does the city have a day-labor hiring center for the benefit of non-citizens? These actions and statements are indicators that an informal (unwritten) sanctuary policy may exist in a community.

A local government's (e.g., township, village, city, or county) interaction with illegal aliens can evidence an unwritten sanctuary policy. For example, does a police department contact Immigration and Customs enforcement (ICE) if they encounter illegal aliens after a traffic stop or criminal arrest? Are illegal aliens simply released after the traffic stop or time spent in the local jail? Are criminal charges dropped to help the illegal alien from being taken into custody by ICE?

None-the-less, an informal sanctuary policy is sanctioned by a local government authority and implemented by its public employees (administrative, service, and or safety forces). Informal sanctuary policies are more difficult to document since no public record exists. Informal sanctuary policies however can be evidenced in other ways.

An informal sanctuary policy is an 'unwritten' policy that exists but is not formally documented on paper. An informal sanctuary policy might be by oral, handshake, or even unspoken understandings or agreements.

In Katy, Texas , publicity about re-offending illegal aliens also put pressure on that city's administration to rethink it's sanctuary policy--at least for illegal aliens that commit felonies.

In 2008, Gavin Newsom, who served as mayor of San Francisco at the time, publicized the city's sanctuary status in a press release for San Francisco's Sanctuary City Outreach Program. Newsome later backtracked from his own statements after news reports began exposing how the city's sanctuary policy had protected violent criminal illegal alien gang members. In 2009, Newsome attempted to veto an ordinance passed by San Francisco's even more radical Board of Supervisors which prohibited illegal aliens charged with crimes from being detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Newsome now serves as California's Lt. Governor.

The Republican controlled Utah Legislature passed controversial bills in May 2011 , which allow illegal aliens to live and work in Utah. Police also refrain from inquiring about anyone's legal status unless they are stopped or arrested for serious misdemeanors or felonies.

The Governor of Maine instituted an Executive Order entitled " An Order Concerning Access to State Services By All Entitled Maine Residents ," in 2004. The Order limits state employee ability to report the presence of illegal aliens, which some people claim has resulted in many illegal aliens migrating to Maine seeking public benefits and valid Maine drivers licenses (which can be used to drive in other states).

A formal sanctuary policy is a written policy enacted a local government body in the form of a resolution, ordinance, or administrative action--general or special orders, or departmental policies. Formal sanctuary cities are the easiest to identify because these sanctuary policies are in writing and are subject to public records requests by citizens and the press.

Generally, sanctuary policies instruct local or state government employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in or passing through their communities, counties, or states. These policies may also blur the legal distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens, so illegal aliens can have access to the same taxpayer funded programs and benefits available to legal permanent resident aliens.

In 1996, the 104th U.S. Congress passed Pub. L. 104-208, also known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA ). The IIRIRA requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. Despite the IIRIRA, hundreds of urban, suburban, and rural communities have ignored the law and adopted so-called "sanctuary policies."

Why do public officials adopt sanctuary policies for illegal aliens?

One justification of creating sanctuary cities is often under the guise of protecting 'immigrant rights.' But illegal aliens are not immigrants. By definition, an 'immigrant' is a foreign national (alien) who legally emigrated to the U.S. and has applied for and was granted lawful permanent resident status by the U.S. government. When a foreign national is illegally smuggled into the U.S. or violates visa restrictions--he or she is an unauthorized (illegal) alien present in the U.S. in violation of U.S. law, and subject to deportation under Title 8 of the U.S. Code § 1227, Deportable aliens.

Another false argument public officials use to justify sanctuary policies is public safety. To gain support for the adoption of sanctuary policies, some public officials claim that sanctuary policies serve as an effective "community policing" tool. This fallacious argument goes as follows: 'Illegal aliens who are witnesses or victims of crimes, won't report the crimes for fear of arrest and deportation.'

However, illegal aliens cannot possibly be victims of crime in the U.S. (or be witnesses to crimes) if they if are not in the U.S. Nor can illegal aliens continue to victimize thousands of U.S. citizens each year if they are removed from the U.S. and kept out by an aggressive border and interior enforcement policy. Logically, public safety is improved by enforcing immigration laws, including the prosecution of those individuals whom have aided and abetted illegal aliens by adopting illegal sanctuary policies.

Why do public officials pass sanctuary laws or establish unwritten "don't ask--don't tell" policies? There are a variety of reasons. Some politicians attempt to appease politically powerful illegal immigration support groups such as the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund (MALDF), and League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) that lobby local governments to implement formal or informal sanctuary policies. Other reasons include political contributions and ethnic voter support at election time; complacency, ignorance, or 'don't care' attitudes; and purposeful resistance to existing U.S. immigration law based upon an open-border political philosophy that may serve their economic, political, or ethnocentric interests.

A number of politically appointed big city police chief's often support an administration's sanctuary policy because they share a similar political ideology or just want to keep their jobs. Supporting sanctuary policies can also be the path of least resistance for city officials too. Public officials can avoid the political protests and threats of expensive lawsuits by organizations like the ACLU that routinely follow any attempts by cities who try to stop illegal aliens from settling in their communities. The City of Hazelton, PA was sued by the Obama administration after it's city council passed ordinances intended to counter an illegal alien crime wave in which several people were murdered.

The Obama administration had been quick to file lawsuits against any state or local government attempting to crack down on illegal aliens in its jurisdiction. However, when cities openly violated federal law by aiding illegal aliens, the Obama administration failed to prosecute. The Obama Department of Justice reportedly pressured DHS not to interfere with cities with sanctuary policies. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson audaciously claimed that the Obama administration was helpless in stopping sanctuary policies. Johnson also opposed any attempts by the U.S. Congress to pass legislation punishing sanctuary cities.

The consequences of sanctuary policies. What you can do.



Military strategists understand the importance of denying an enemy geographic sanctuaries. Sanctuaries allow an enemy time to safely operate and build up defensive and offensive capabilities and hold and take ground. Sanctuaries for illegal aliens likewise provide an important strategic advantage over law enforcement and their ability to perform their law enforcement duties.

Sanctuary policies, official or de facto, result in safe havens (or safer havens) for illegal aliens involved in a variety of criminal enterprises. Sanctuary policies inhibit the ability of law enforcement officers to accurately identify foreign nationals which makes it more difficult to uncover their illegal activities. Illegal aliens face less risk of deportation too if caught by local law enforcement. Sanctuary policies also help shield the operations of Latin American drug cartels, gangs, and terrorist cells--since their activities are less likely to be detected and real identities uncovered by local, state, or federal law enforcement.

Some sanctuary cities (e.g., Chicago and San Francisco) even receive millions of dollars in federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grants to compensate for the cost of jailing illegal alien criminals--even though their city sanctuary policies act to encourage illegal alien settlement.

According to Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey Rosen, the Santa Clara County California's sanctuary policy has put its citizens at greater risk. District Attorney Rosen proposed that the County Board of Supervisors vote to ease its law baring local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement. Rosen gave an example of a woman who was raped by an illegal alien who had been shielded from federal detention by the county's policy.

To learn more about the consequences of sanctuary policies and lax immigration law enforcement, visit the Victims of Illegal Aliens Memorial and the OJJPAC homepage.

What you can do to stop sanctuary policies in your city and state.

What can you do to help stop sanctuary policies? Get involved and demand change! Call the President and your members of Congress (U.S. House and U.S. Senate) and demand aggressive border and interior enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. At the state and local level, attend and testify at scheduled public meetings and determine what are your community's policies. If your local government or state has official or unofficial sanctuary policies, demand that the policies be repealed.

A group of citizens in Spokane, Washington, called Respect Washington, started an initiative petition in 2015 (Initiative No. 2015-1) to stop the city's illegal alien sanctuary policy which was adopted by the Spokane City Council in October, 2014.

Some state legislatures have either passed or are considering immigration enforcement legislation too, which you can support. For example, in early 2015, State Senator Charles Perry, R-Lubock, Texas, introduced SB 185. SB 185 specifically allowed local law enforcement to question immigration status and share that information with federal law enforcement. It also allowed the Texas Attorney General to investigate citizen complaints about Texas cities that have adopted sanctuary policies.

Some public officials have taken positive steps to combat illegal alien crime.

Some communities have taken positive steps to combat illegal immigration. For example, after significant numbers of illegal aliens began to settle in Prince William County, VA, its Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on July 10, 2007 cracking down on illegal aliens. The county's law enforcement agents began checking immigration status of people detained for violating local or state laws if an officer had probable cause. After the enforcement policy was implemented, many illegal aliens moved out of the county, crime significantly dropped, and citizens experienced an improved quality of life.

Some cities have passed resolutions declaring themselves not to be sanctuary cities. The City of Escondido, CA passed such a resolution in 2007 and defeated an attempt to have it repealed by a Hispanic council member in 2010. In May, 2010, The City of Costa Mesa, CA passed a "Rule of Law City" Resolution supported by Mayor Allan Mansoor. The resolution signaled the city's support for the rule of law and opposition to cities that violate federal law by creating sanctuaries for illegal aliens.

In response to the great number of illegal aliens entering Arizona via Mexico, the Arizona state legislature passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007, which allowed the state to sanction employers of illegal workers. In 2010, the State of Arizona also passed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, better known as SB 1070, which also had the purpose of addressing the problems associated with illegal migration in Arizona. The U.S. Department of Justice sued the State of Arizona over SB 1070 and in, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and later upheld some parts of the law and struck down others aspects of the law on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

In May, 2011, former Congressman Lou Barletta (PA-11), introduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act of 2011. Barletta, the former mayor of Hazleton Pennsylvania gained national attention in 2006 after spearheading the passage of two ordinances to combat escalating violence attributed to the growing illegal alien population in Hazleton. Barletta's proposed bill prohibited sanctuary cities from receiving federal funds until the communities were in compliance with the IIRIR Act of 1996. The bill died in the U.S. House of Representatives. Barletta reintroduced the Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act after the murder of Kate Steinle in San Francisco in July, 2015. Ms. Steinle was shot by an illegal alien from Mexico who had sought protection from deportation by San Francisco's sanctuary policy. Unfortunately that bill died in the US House too.

Former U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions, one of the strongest advocates for immigration law enforcement in the U.S. Congress, introduced Senate Bill 1640 (S. 1640) in June, 2015, to address Sanctuary Cities. Senator Sessions' bill gives states and local governments the authority to enforce immigration laws. The bill was called The Davis-Oliver Act, after two law enforcement officers who where murdered by illegal aliens. Former congressman Trey Gowdy introduced a companion bill in the U.S. House (H.R. 1148). Those bills died too.

The Missouri legislature acted to rein in sanctuary cities by amending Chapter 67of the Missouri Revised Statutes, enacting Section 67.307. The new Act prohibited municipalities from adopting sanctuary policies under the penalty of becoming ineligible for certain state funding.

The ordinances and state statutes that municipalities and states have passed have been subject to immediate legal challenges. The former Obama administration and or so-called "immigrant rights groups" used their resources to oppose any attempts to crackdown on illegal aliens in their jurisdictions. Opponents to the enforcement initiatives claimed that the U.S. Constitution delegates all immigration powers to the federal government and local or state governments had no business involving themselves in immigration policy.

Some local and state officials frustrated with the Obama administration's lack of enforcement of immigration laws, argued that they were forced to take action because the federal government's blatant refusal to enforce the law. These officials argued that they have the authority to pass and enforce laws that do not conflict with federal law. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that some aspects of these state statutes are constitutional, such as sections of Arizona's SB 1070.



Partisanship has been apparent in the battle over sanctuary policies. For example, in October 2015, the U.S. Senate held a cloture vote on S.2146, which was introduced by Louisiana Senator David Vitter. The senate bill's intent was to penalize cities that provided sanctuary to illegal aliens in defiance of federal law. In a party-line vote, Senate Democrats overwhelmingly supported sanctuary cities by denying the necessary 60 votes needed to end debate, thereby killing the bill.



In July, 2016, partisanship also killed two anti-sanctuary bills in the U.S. Senate. Senate Bill 2193 (a.k.a. Kate's Law) and S. 3100, the Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act, were both defeated during procedural motion votes by members of the Senate Democratic caucus.

Donald Trump happily surprise many people in the pro-immigration law enforcement camp by making the issue of sanctuary cities, a key hot-button issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. Candidate Trump succeeded in riding the country's pro-immigration law enforcement wave to the White House.

President Trump's dramatic November 8th election victory stunned open-border advocates who vowed to fight any attempt by President Trump to enforce the rule of law and deport illegal aliens. Trump's vow to crack down on 'sanctuary cities' by cutting federal funding has set the stage for a battle of wills with a number of small and big city mayors. These cities, primarily run by socialist progressives who have transformed the Democratic Party into a far-leftwing political party, have openly stated that they will continue to defy federal law and refuse to cooperate with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.

During Trump's first week in office, the President signed several pro-immigration law enforcement Executive Orders. The 'Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States' Executive Order dealt specifically with the problem of Sanctuary Cities. Since signing the Order, over 50 additional cities have thumbed their nose at the Trump Department of Homeland Security and passed Sanctuary Resolutions, sometimes calling them 'Welcoming Resolutions' in order to avoid the attention of the Trump administration.

In an March 15, 2017 article written by Joseph Geha for the East Bay Times, the chairman of the City of Fremont California's Human Relations Commission, is quoted as saying: "There are strength in numbers. The more communities, the more cities that sign on to sanctuary city status, the more difficult it will be for the federal government government to do anything about it." [The Fremont city council passed its sanctuary resolution that day.]

A 'sanctuary flash mob' strategy does appear to be the progressive Democrats' plan to overwhelm President Trump's efforts to rein in sanctuary jurisdictions by threatening cuts in federal funding.

Since President Trump released his Executive Order, the trend has been a sharp increase in the number of sanctuary resolutions being passed across the country. That trend slowed after US Attorney General Jeff Sessions began to also publicly warn that sanctuary jurisdictions' might lose federal funds.



But as the threatened funding cuts did not occur, cities resumed their consideration of sanctuary policies, sometimes also referred to as "welcoming" policies. Some existing sanctuary cities also began to double down on their policies. They included more restrictions on information sharing and filed lawsuits claiming that it was unlawful for the federal government to cut some or all the threatened funding. In a January 18, 2018 interview, Oakland California Mayor Libby Schaaf said she would defend the city's illegal alien sanctuary policy even it results in her jailing.

The State of California's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration agents is also getting blowback from some Californians, including citizens and public officials. They believe that the state's refusal to cooperate with the federal immigration agents is a violation of federal law and puts their citizens at risk.

Texas governor Greg Abbott signed an anti-sanctuary bill (SB 4) that was passed by the Texas legislature in 2017. The law was almost immediately challenged and blocked by a US District Court judge Orlando Garcia. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court reversed Garcia's order, allowing most of the law injunctive relief. Enforcement of the law has said to be "rare." The Texas attorney general did file suit against the San Antonio chief of police in November, 2018 for failing to comply with the law. The suit remain pending.

In March, 2018, the City Council of Los Alamitos, California, made national news when it voted to reject and exempt itself from the state's recent sanctuary law. The state law prohibits Californian cities and state government from cooperating with federal immigration agents. Since then other cities in California are now considering or have passed similar anti-sanctuary ordinances. The commissioners in the Florida county of Brevard also passed a anti-sanctuary resolution in August, 2018.

Pro-sanctuary non-profit groups like the American Friends Service Committee, are advocating for "Sanctuary Everywhere" policies throughout the U.S. Miami-Dade Florida reportedly was protecting illegal aliens from state anti-sanctuary laws by having police issue tickets rather than taking unauthorized aliens to jail. If arrested, an illegal alien might be identified by ICE agents and detained for deportation proceedings.

Under the leadership of Florida's governor Ron DeSantis, the Florida State Legislature passed SB 168, an anti-sanctuary law in 2019. The law was challenged in federal court by the City of South Miami and illegal alien advocacy groups. Federal Florida District Court Judge Beth Bloom ruling upheld most of the law which generally bans "sanctuary cities" and requires law enforcement in Florida to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement officers.

Ultimately, the "sanctuary" battle will continue in the federal court system for years to come. The U.S. Supreme Court will likely decide the fate of the many lawsuits related to "sanctuary city" policies, and the Trump administration's related executive orders which have also been challenged in federal courts. On November 12, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court finally heard oral arguments regarding Obama's controversial and very likely unconstitutional DACA program.



On June 18, 2020 the Court in a 5-4 opinion vacated in part, reversed in part and remanded the DACA case back to the federal appellate court. In short, the court at least temporarily has kept DACA in place not because it was ruled constitutional but because the Trump administration did not perform all of the required administrative processes in ending the program. The Trump administration is now expected to take another bite at the apple to end DACA but has also been ordered to continue the DACA program.



Does your town, city, county, or state have a written or unwritten sanctuary policy? Read the disclaimer below and then view The Original List of Sanctuary Cities, USA.