Sanctuary Cities Analysis

The debate over illegal immigration has been a constant and ongoing struggle in the United States. Millions of illegal immigrants are living among us in the country, we have more entering daily. Recently, President Barack Obama touched on the topic with his immigration executive order. Unfortunately, with the republican takeover of the white house, many of his actions are not being supported. This is viable evidence that there are people who want to help fix the immigration system in a way that will benefit illegal immigrants and give them a fighting chance to prosper here in the United States. With that being said, there are also powers who do not want to see that happen because they believe that it is not in the best interest of the United States to open their borders to illegals. This puts to question what the next steps for the United States will decide and how that will affect Americans across the country. My goal of this essay is to enlighten the moral concerns in the debates pertaining to immigration.

(WEN) - Two weeks ago President Donald Trump signed an executive order to support immigration enforcement and punish local governments that don't comply with federal authorities. This includes potentially taking away funding for any city that deems itself a sanctuary city.

Illegal immigrants have been a hot topic lately due to the popularity of this topic amongst the Republican Presidential Nominees, especially Donald Trump. These illegal immigrants bring various things to this country when they come. Some things are positive, such as a family simply seeking to find a better life, while some things are harmful to the United States, such as the amount of crime among illegal immigrants. In July 2015, the most recent estimate of illegal immigrants was 11.2 million. This same data shoes that 56 percent of all deportations last year were convicted criminals, which accounted for 177,960 individuals (Shoichet, 2015). Crime among illegal immigrants is a problem, and sanctuary cities, which are supposed to be a solution, may be making this problem worse.

Immigration has been a burning issue lately, particularly after Donald Trump’s immigration ban in the United States of America. It has been a topic that families discuss every morning with breakfast. Despite many concerns related to immigration, it has several positive benefits that mostly outweighs the negativity. People bizarrely argue when it comes to immigration, but these arguments are primarily based on facts and ideas that are outdated or inconsistent and blindfold the positive aspect related to immigration. Many immigrants in the United States are good workers who don't depend upon any public welfare and mostly help in the overall development of the economy. As a country made by immigrants, we must not forget the fact that immigrants have helped to build cities and create a path of development form Google to iPhones (Gray & Furman, 2012). These facts are secluded, and some related arguments with different content have been repeated for years and continue. Immigrants have a lot to give the United States rather than to take, especially when it comes to economic terms.

On November 20, 2014, Former President of United States of America, Barack Obama gave a speech on immigration at the White House. This topic concerned ample families in the United States of America, as a lot of them are not legally residing in the states and the other families who are citizens and documented are threatened by the increasing number of illegal immigrants because they might become their competition in employment, education and business opportunities. Barack Obama Addressed these concerns in a unique perception that enlightened the audience and gave examples and ideas that led them to view this problem under a different light that isn’t necessarily negative. The president’s connection with the audience was not only logical and

As Donald Trump’s presidency unfolds his promise to crack down on immigration and cut funding to sanctuary cities is becoming a reality, however, each city is handling it differently. Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump promised to crack down on illegal immigrants and “sanctuary cities”. Sanctuary city is a vague term that is being thrown around right now. It loosely refers to a towns or cities that don’t immediately turn over illegals who commit small crimes, and don’t cooperate fully with immigration services (“Sanctuary Cities: Top 3 Pros and Cons”). Most Texas cities have vowed to remain loyal to their citizens, and not rip families apart due to politics and money. Cutting federal funding to a city is not an

Most people’s families have that immigrated to America generations ago. Thus, they do not understand the difficulties of immigrating to America. In the last 2 decades. A young twelve-year old child came to America from India along with her two siblings, mother, and father in the 1980s. They were provided safe haven in New York, a sanctuary city, until their immigration process began. A sanctuary city like New York, does exactly what they for that family by providing protection for undocumented immigrants . These cities do so by refusing to follow federal detention requests. There exists a large demographic of people who disagree with the idea of sanctuary cities in America. Since this demographic is against the idea of undocumented immigration

With important issues occurring every hour these days, more questions are being asked with them. One of those issues is Sanctuary Cities. A Sanctuary city is a city in which State and Local government do not follow immigration policy and do not actively seek and deport undocumented immigrants. Some could find that this Local policy hurts all Americans. Some could find this a moral obligation as a citizen of the United States. But by any means this topics has major implications to President Trumps policies and Federalism. And with these cities becoming more mainstream, question are becoming more relevant to other parts of government. There are direct effects on issues like cities health program, fight against opioids, and other local

First of all, the U.S Constitution protects these sanctuary cities. Since federal government and state government. If the city in the state decides to become a sanctuary city, there should be nothing in the way of them. The federal government shouldn’t intervene into something that they shouldn’t be in. Good relationships with local law enforcement and the people of the city documented or not, is essential in order for prosperous growth. When the people of the city and the law enforcement can help each other and communicate without fear of being deported or stripped from their family, then that city should be an example for all others. Protecting these undocumented immigrants from unjust Federal Immigration Laws should be one of the main goals. The government is taking the hard working people that have been here their entire lives. Trump’s idea of sanctuary cities is a bit blurry due to the fact that he only looks at crimes. Trump does not look at all the important things that undocumented people and families do like work the jobs that no one else wants to do. They do it efficiently as well, it’s not like if they do a bad job. Undocumented immigrants are actually working the fields putting all the food that other people use on their plates. As a matter of fact, now that Mr. Trump wants to build “a giant beautiful wall”, most of the people that will be actually building will

Sanctuary cities are considered to be havens for undocumented immigrants who have entered the United States for economic opportunities, to escape violence, or other various reasons. One of the first sanctuary cities in the country was Los Angeles, which along with the rest of Los Angeles County is home to roughly 814,000 undocumented immigrants as of 2013 (PPIC). Many of these undocumented immigrants have never committed a criminal act outside of the civil offence of entering the country without the proper immigration documents. While there may be flaws to sanctuary cities, Los Angeles’ status as a sanctuary city is vital to the protection of not only the undocumented immigrants living there but the rest of the community as well.

Tax dollars that ought properly to benefit the people who paid them to go instead to underwrite hospital, police, prison and education services for those who are not entitled to be here in the first place” (ACRU, The Top Five Reasons to Oppose “Sanctuary Cities”). The fact that Sanctuary Cities do more taxes to give money to undocumented instead of benefiting those who paid taxes is not fair. It’s not fair because instead of taking care of the people who paid and underwriting hospitals, police, and education system you give it to the undocumented who came without a

The Los Angeles freelance writer Richards discussed the changing ideology and opinions that have shaped California’s immigration policies. Even though Los Angeles is a sanctuary city that hosts several hundred thousand of immigrants, the city was once a tough place for immigrants to settle and enter. For example, in 1986, the city had instituted measures that could deport immigrants more so the ones who had a higher risk of recidivism (Richards). However, as the immigrants’ population surged and their political relevance increased, a federal court eventually awarded them the right to be accorded public services that other city members were entitled to, retracting the 1994 discriminatory policy that denied immigrants such privileges (Richards).

Cities such as San Francisco fail to cooperate when illegal immigrants are being released from prison by not contacting the Department of Homeland Security. This causes a threat to local residents because undocumented criminals that have been incarcerated are once again given the power to commit illegal crimes and harm U.S. citizens. In the article, the author emphasizes “ The American people “‘ are justifiably angry’” about these sanctuary policies that endanger them. They understand something that local officials don’t seem to care about” (Von Spakovsky). Jurisdictions that adopt “sanctuary policies” happen to think that the protection of illegal criminals is more important than the protection of legal U.S. residents.

Can sanctuary cities be effective in both the policing and protection of undocumented citizens and if so, how will they regulate the population in question? A main issue being displayed here is a lack of standardized regulations being set by sanctuary cities. Instead of setting a precedent of resisting government immigration policies, these efforts would better have spent towards setting up and promoting programs that assist illegal immigrants in becoming American citizens. This paper will look at articles regarding sanctuary cities from Slate, Vox and the Wall Street Journal and decide which has the strongest argument.

1793 was the first known start of what is now known today as Sanctuary Cities except back then it was called “The Fugitive Slave Act.” The sanctuary city was home to America’s first significant class of refugees or fugitive slaves as they were called back then (Baker, 2017). The name “sanctuary cities” comes from the 1980s protests of federal immigration policies that refused shelter to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. San Francisco led the way by passing a city ordinance in 1985 that specifically prohibited city police or civil magistrates from helping federal immigration officers, more cities followed suit. So did organizations not license by the state, like churches. H. Robert Baker who is a Professor