More than one in three Americans live in a state or city that refuses to cooperate with immigration enforcement by the federal government. These so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions prohibit local law enforcement agents from asking suspects about their immigration status and sometimes even refuse to detain violent criminals until Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can arrange for their deportation. They sacrifice their citizens’ safety and tax dollars out of misguided compassion.
Sanctuary jurisdictions began in Chicago in 1985, but it wasn’t until 2011 that action taken by former President Barack Obama triggered more widespread and controversial sanctuary policies. His administration’s “Secure Communities” program sought local governments’ help deporting non-citizens in U.S. prisons and other criminals. Under subsection 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, state and local law enforcement can be enlisted to help enforce immigration law if their local government agrees to it.
Defenders of sanctuary jurisdictions often point to the fact that immigrants, in general, commit fewer crimes than native-born citizens. But these defenders omit a crucial detail: the lower rate of immigrant crime is a result of their deportation before they can commit a second crime. Statistics reveal that most crimes are not the product of first-time offenders; rather, a small group of individuals re-offends repeatedly. American citizens who are recidivist criminals burden the U.S. criminal justice system. Non-citizen recidivism could be eliminated by U.S. immigration law, which mandates deportation after a serious crime — even for legal immigrants.
A tragic example of what can happen when localities don’t cooperate with federal immigration law is the high-profile case of Laken Riley’s murderer.
A tragic example of what can happen when localities don’t cooperate with federal immigration law is the high-profile case of Laken Riley’s murderer. The University of Georgia student was murdered by Venezuelan illegal immigrant Jose Ibarra, who entered the country illegally through the southern border and was then bussed to New York City. There, he received free shelter and meals thanks to New York’s “Right to Shelter” policy that has cost the city over $6 billion in the last four years.
Before killing Laken Riley in Georgia, Ibarra had already been arrested in New York City for child endangerment. But under New York’s sanctuary city laws, Ibarra was not reported to ICE after his arrest — he was released pending trial. Then, to reduce its number of welfare-dependents like Ibarra, New York arranged a free flight out of state for Ibarra. That’s how he wound up in Georgia, free to commit another — more heinous — crime.
New York and other liberal jurisdictions’ sanctuary policies, coupled with its soft-on-crime practices that require no bail releases and make prosecution of minor crimes prohibitively expensive, have transformed its criminal justice system into a social services system — appearing almost unconcerned with ensuring public safety.
Most illegal immigrant crime is preventable, starting with better border security. The critical next step is cooperation between local jurisdictions and federal immigration authorities. If states and cities fail to cooperate, criminals are shielded, while their victims — not only innocent American citizens, but also other legal and illegal immigrants who are trying to build a better life — are endangered.
A society that prioritizes open door immigration and universal welfare over the rule of law and safety ends in chaos.
American citizens and legal taxpaying residents of the U.S. are deprived of critical services such as public safety and infrastructure because funds are diverted to cover the cost of shelter, healthcare, and other social services to those in the U.S. illegally. Sanctuary policies created decades ago as reasonable protections for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants have become free shelter and meal arrangements in New York, and Medicaid coverage for all illegal immigrants in California.
While the financial burden of sanctuary policies is staggering, their contentiousness is not just about dollars. A society that prioritizes open door immigration and universal welfare over the rule of law and safety ends in chaos. The fundamental duty of any government is to protect its people and to enforce the law fairly and effectively. Sanctuary deliberately hinders the enforcement of the law against dangerous criminals, sacrificing the well-being of citizens and legal immigrants on the altar of open borders.
Daniel Di Martino is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and PhD candidate in Economics at Columbia University. Originally from Venezuela, Di Martino is a frequent speaker on college campuses through Young America’s Foundation, where he serves as a board of advisors member; he is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights New Jersey Advisory Committee, and he is the founder of the Dissident Project.