Is the modern "sanctuary city" concept mainly a US thing?

[Capsicum]

Is the situation in the US where some cities shelter undocumented immigrants against deportation from the federal plan to remove them particular to the country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

I see some Canadian examples on Wikipedia, but they all appear to have their status as sanctuary city established relatively recently (within this decade, if not last few years) and often it seems to be implied to be following the US example.

Looking up the definition on Wikipedia, it seems like most non-US or Canadian examples are talking about different phenomenon -- being welcoming to asylum seekers or refugees (ie. wanting to attract the immigrants to begin with, rather than having them arrive, and then protecting them later from being sent away).

The idea that a city will "hold out" against sending an undocumented immigrant back to his/her home country because the city wants to protect them, even if the country at a larger political level wants them out seems to strike me as a very American form of conflict between a lower (municipal) and higher level political division (federal).

Like the city is saying "we want you here and will protect you" vs. the country saying "we want you out!" and the fate of the illegal/undocumented immigrant hanging in the balance isn't really something I've heard of as much outside the US.

[dc_denizen]

canada doesn't have massive populations of destitute, uneducated, sometimes criminally affiliated yet hard working central american illegal immigrants.

so yes, it's a US thing for this specific reason.

maybe vancouver can become a sanctuary city for chinese money launderers if the canadian federal government cracks down on foreign money transfers, haha.

[muppet]

London and the affluent metro half (Brighton to the south, Oxford to the west, Cambridge to the north) - Brexit voting:



Traditionally for the country as a whole the areas with the least amount of immigrants (which number about 15% of the UK population, same as the US) have the highest anti-immigration and anti-EU support.

There are two regions that are outliers - Scotland that has less immigration but whose parliament actively encourages it, and whose populace broadly supports it. And the east of London, which is the opposite - high immigration (from Eastern Europe) but high opposition also. This is the area the traditional East Londoners (Cockneys, many of whom themselves came from immigrant communities such as the Irish, Jewish, Polish, Italian or French Huguenot) moved out and retired to, whose traditional heartland was taken over by postwar immigration.

[10023]

^ Same as anywhere else, the people who perceive themselves to be adversely affected by mass, low-skilled immigration (i.e., the low-skilled masses) are the ones opposed to it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Is the situation in the US where some cities shelter undocumented immigrants against deportation from the federal plan to remove them particular to the country?

You don't seem to understand the concept of sanctuary cities. It has nothing to do with "sheltering undocumented immigrants against deportation". That's the job of federal authorities.

It's about police not taking immigration status into account when investigating crimes, and it's about not deputizing local authorities to do the work of the feds. In Sanctuary Cities, crime victims can report without fear of reprisals from authorities regardless of immigration status.

[initiald]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You don't seem to understand the concept of sanctuary cities. It has nothing to do with "sheltering undocumented immigrants against deportation". That's the job of federal authorities.

It's about police not taking immigration status into account when investigating crimes, and it's about not deputizing local authorities to do the work of the feds. In Sanctuary Cities, crime victims can report without fear of reprisals from authorities regardless of immigration status.

This is correct. It's the same thing about cities decriminalizing marijuana because that is a federal issue and should be handled by federal authorities. If they feds want to enforce immigration the burden should fall on them, not on local jurisdictions. It's not any business of city authorities if someone has correct federal paperwork or not so they shouldn't ask about it because it isn't their concern.

[Sun Belt]

Ultimately, this is a losing fight for cities and states.

All the Feds have to do is place language within grants that say for example: as a condition for accepting $100 million for computers, police cars, surveillance equipment whatever, you must comply with ICE. Once the language is in place, legally they cannot refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You don't seem to understand the concept of sanctuary cities. It has nothing to do with "sheltering undocumented immigrants against deportation". That's the job of federal authorities.

It's about police not taking immigration status into account when investigating crimes, and it's about not deputizing local authorities to do the work of the feds. In Sanctuary Cities, crime victims can report without fear of reprisals from authorities regardless of immigration status.

That's only half of the discussion.

There is no clear definition as to what a sanctuary city is because each jurisdiction has different laws and definitions.

Some places forbid local law enforcement to notify federal authorities that they have a suspected illegal immigrant in their custody. That local law enforcement agency has already spent their money and resources to detain that person for another crime that that person had committed, like a DUI or theft or whatever.

The local law enforcement agency is not playing 'Immigration Officer' by rounding up illegals and detaining them, they are arresting and detaining them for other reasons or crimes already committed. In some sanctuary cities, they are forbidden to notify the Federal immigration agencies to hand-off the suspect to the Feds.

[initiald]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Ultimately, this is a losing fight for cities and states.

All the Feds have to do is place language within grants that say for example: as a condition for accepting $100 million for computers, police cars, surveillance equipment whatever, you must comply with ICE. Once the language is in place, legally they cannot refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

This is why we need sovereign cities. National/federal governments do nothing but hold back cities without providing them with any benefit. The fact in the 21st century is that national governments are more hindrance than a help and do absolutely nothing that cities can't do better.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

That's only half of the discussion.

There is no clear definition as to what a sanctuary city is because each jurisdiction has different laws and definitions.

Some places forbid local law enforcement to notify federal authorities that they have a suspected illegal immigrant in their custody. That local law enforcement agency has already spent their money and resources to detain that person for another crime that that person had committed, like a DUI or theft or whatever.

The local law enforcement agency is not playing 'Immigration Officer' by rounding up illegals and detaining them, they are arresting and detaining them for other reasons or crimes already committed. In some sanctuary cities, they are forbidden to notify the Federal immigration agencies to hand-off the suspect to the Feds.

They are if they're checking status and then turning these individuals over to immigration authorities. They did most of the legwork for the feds already by detaining them and verifying their immigration status. ICE just picks them up and deports them.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by muppet

London and the affluent metro half (Brighton to the south, Oxford to the west, Cambridge to the north) - Brexit voting:



Traditionally for the country as a whole the areas with the least amount of immigrants (which number about 15% of the UK population, same as the US) have the highest anti-immigration and anti-EU support.

There are two regions that are outliers - Scotland that has less immigration but whose parliament actively encourages it, and whose populace broadly supports it. And the east of London, which is the opposite - high immigration (from Eastern Europe) but high opposition also. This is the area the traditional East Londoners (Cockneys, many of whom themselves came from immigrant communities such as the Irish, Jewish, Polish, Italian or French Huguenot) moved out and retired to, whose traditional heartland was taken over by postwar immigration.

There are places in the UK where the population is more or less favourable to migration (and/or more or less willing to turn a blind eye to illegal immigration), but that's not the same thing as this 'Sanctuary City' concept I think which doesn't exist here imo.

There isn't the distinction between local and national/federal law enforcement in the UK that there is in more decentralised countries so there's not really an option for cities to ignore national laws on enforcing immigration as there is in those systems.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by initiald

This is correct. It's the same thing about cities decriminalizing marijuana because that is a federal issue and should be handled by federal authorities. If they feds want to enforce immigration the burden should fall on them, not on local jurisdictions. It's not any business of city authorities if someone has correct federal paperwork or not so they shouldn't ask about it because it isn't their concern.

Sure didn't stop the local police from arresting me back in the day for marijuana.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by JManc

They are if they're checking status and then turning these individuals over to immigration authorities. They did most of the legwork for the feds already by detaining them and verifying their immigration status. ICE just picks them up and deports them.

Well, no, that is not what is happening. They check federal databases all the time for everything.

They are arrested for an offense like a DUI and are held for that offense. After they are processed through the system the local agencies are being forbidden to notify the Federal government for violations of federal law, of which, the Feds would take the role and costs of processing that violator.

These sanctuary laws are restricting communications between law enforcement agencies.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by initiald

This is why we need sovereign cities. National/federal governments do nothing but hold back cities without providing them with any benefit. The fact in the 21st century is that national governments are more hindrance than a help and do absolutely nothing that cities can't do better.

We had a war over this before (insert state for cities)

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Well, no, that is not what is happening. They check federal databases all the time for everything.

They are arrested for an offense like a DUI and are held for that offense. After they are processed through the system the local agencies are being forbidden to notify the Federal government for violations of federal law, of which, the Feds would take the role and costs of processing that violator.

These sanctuary laws are restricting communications between law enforcement agencies.

What an awesome policy. People here illegally, commit a crime, and we welcome them to stay. Those are the very people we should be kicking out ASAP. That isn't the same as reporting someone's status who gets a speeding ticket, mind you.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Ultimately, this is a losing fight for cities and states.

All the Feds have to do is place language within grants that say for example: as a condition for accepting $100 million for computers, police cars, surveillance equipment whatever, you must comply with ICE. Once the language is in place, legally they cannot refuse to cooperate with federal authorities.

And then all the cities have to do is head to court, like Chicago did over Byrne Grants.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...915-story.html

To say that Trump's DOJ is sloppy would be a massive understatement.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Well, no, that is not what is happening. They check federal databases all the time for everything.

They are arrested for an offense like a DUI and are held for that offense. After they are processed through the system the local agencies are being forbidden to notify the Federal government for violations of federal law, of which, the Feds would take the role and costs of processing that violator.

These sanctuary laws are restricting communications between law enforcement agencies.

It gets even worse. In CA the feds often find out somehow that certain individuals they are looking for are in local custody for a state/local crime and request notification when the person is to be released. Sometimes they also ask the local jurisdiction to hold the person until they can come get them. CA law now forbids the local law enforcement from doing either--telling the feds when they plan to release the individual or holding him/her until ICE can come get them.

However certain local law enforcement agencies, including the Orange County Sheriff, have begun getting around the law by publishing ALL impending release dates/times for everyone they hold. This is not a violation of anyone's privacy since it is a matter of public record who has been arrested and who is in jail.

[edale]

The Sanctuary Cities laws help to spread fear among illegal immigrant communities, because if ICE can't pick up illegal immigrants who have committed crimes beyond simply being here illegally, then they go out into the neighborhoods. Everyone cries out about ICE grabbing people from their homes or out in public, but if local entities won't notify them about criminals (the very people who should be deported), and ICE still has to do its job, then what is the alternative? It would seem to me, if cities wanted to show compassion for illegal immigrants, they should be instructing local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE so that the criminals and threats to society can be prioritized for removal, and ICE wouldn't have to resort to canvassing neighborhoods for illegals, which puts both ICE employees and illegal immigrants who have committed no other crimes at risk.

[10023]

Well, it definitely wouldn’t be possible here in London, as I’m quite sure that the Metropolitan (London) Police are directly funded by Parliament. They’re not going to ignore or fail to enforce national legislation or policy.

Meanwhile:

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...tation/558317/

During that time, May sought to meet then-Prime Minister David Cameron’s goal of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands by making the U.K. a “hostile environment” for illegal immigration. In practice, this meant requiring doctors, employers, landlords, and schools to confirm that those whom they served were in the country legally.

So not just local police, but teachers, doctors, etc are required to report people without documentation here.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

canada doesn't have massive populations of destitute, uneducated, sometimes criminally affiliated yet hard working central american illegal immigrants.

so yes, it's a US thing for this specific reason.

maybe vancouver can become a sanctuary city for chinese money launderers if the canadian federal government cracks down on foreign money transfers, haha.

Oops! Another miss, dc_denizen.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...is-summer.html


I saw a documentary the other day on French National Radio (Internet) where a family from the Congo were filmed by a crew moving towards Canada. They flew into Sao Paulo, and bussed their family up sometimes walked though forests and paid passers to go from country to country all the way up to the Canadian border crossings near Plattsburgh NY. This is a standard procedure for thousands of people seeking refugee status now.