Sanctuary Cities: Safe Havens or Legal Headaches?
Recent Congressional Hearing
On March 5, 2025, a high-stakes congressional hearing unfolded as the mayors of Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York City defended their sanctuary city policies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Republican lawmakers criticized these policies, arguing they protect individuals who are in the country illegally and may pose safety risks. They suggested that such policies hinder federal immigration enforcement and could endanger public safety.
The mayors countered these allegations, asserting that their policies are legal and essential for fostering trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. They emphasized that cooperation from all residents is crucial for effective policing and public safety. The mayors also called on Congress to update and reform federal immigration laws to address current challenges.
This hearing underscored the ongoing debate between local and federal authorities over immigration enforcement and public safety. While Republicans focused on specific incidents involving undocumented immigrants to argue against sanctuary policies, Democrats stressed the importance of comprehensive immigration reform and maintaining trust within communities.
Exploring the role of sanctuary cities in the U.S. and their impact on immigrant communities.
Who Calls the Shots on Immigration?
In the United States, the federal government holds the reins when it comes to immigration laws and enforcement. This means agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have the primary responsibility for overseeing immigration matters, including deportations.
But how does this play out in real life? Imagine an immigrant is arrested for a crime by local police. After serving their sentence, local authorities might notify ICE to determine if the individual should be deported. This collaboration between local and federal agencies is standard practice in many areas.
During his tenure as a criminal defense attorney in Orlando, Florida, Attorney Yasin G. Amba frequently represented immigrants facing criminal charges. Understanding that criminal convictions can have significant implications for an individual's immigration status, Attorney Amba consistently consulted with immigration law experts before negotiating plea deals. This ensured that his clients were fully informed about the potential immigration consequences of any convictions, allowing them to make decisions that considered both their criminal and immigration situations.
In many instances, after a client completed their sentence or if charges were dropped, the local jail would notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The jail would then hold the individual for a specified period to allow ICE time to take them into custody. However, often this period would elapse without ICE intervention, as the agency typically prioritized individuals with serious convictions.
This process underscores the critical intersection between criminal and immigration law, highlighting the importance of comprehensive legal counsel for immigrants involved in the criminal justice system.
What Exactly Are Sanctuary Cities?
Sanctuary cities are municipalities that have adopted policies to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The goal is to create a safe environment where undocumented immigrants can access essential services without fear of deportation.
These policies often include:
Prohibiting local law enforcement from inquiring about an individual's immigration status.
Declining to detain individuals based solely on ICE requests without a judicial warrant.
The concept isn't new.
Sanctuary policies trace back to the 1980s when U.S. cities began protecting Central American refugees from deportation.
Over time, more cities have adopted similar stances to support their immigrant communities.
Where Are These Sanctuary Cities?
Several major U.S. cities have adopted sanctuary policies, each tailoring their approach based on local priorities:
Los Angeles, California:
Special Order 40: Established in 1979, this order prohibits Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers from initiating contact solely to determine a person's immigration status.Wikipedia
Sanctuary City Ordinance (2024): In 2024, Los Angeles formalized its sanctuary status by enacting an ordinance that restricts city resources from being used in federal immigration enforcement, aligning with the city's longstanding practices.
San Francisco, California:
Sanctuary City Status (1989): San Francisco declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, aiming to protect undocumented immigrants from federal immigration enforcement.
'Due Process for All' Ordinance (2013): This law prevents local authorities from detaining individuals for immigration officials unless they have violent felony convictions or current charges, reinforcing the city's commitment to immigrant protection.Wikipedia
New York City, New York:
Executive Orders 34 and 41: These orders restrict city agencies from inquiring about or disclosing an individual's immigration status, except under specific circumstances, to encourage all residents to access city services without fear.
Detainer Policy: New York City law limits cooperation with federal immigration detainer requests, only honoring them if the individual has been convicted of a violent or serious crime or is identified as a possible match on a terrorist watch list.
Chicago, Illinois:
Welcoming City Ordinance: Chicago's ordinance prohibits city officials from inquiring about or disclosing anyone's immigration status and from cooperating with ICE unless the individual has a criminal warrant, has been convicted of a serious crime, or is identified as a known gang member.
Boston, Massachusetts
Boston's sanctuary city policies are designed to protect undocumented immigrants by limiting local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
The cornerstone of these policies is the Boston Trust Act, enacted in 2014, which prohibits the Boston Police Department from detaining individuals based solely on their immigration status unless there is a criminal warrant. This means that local police do not act as immigration agents and do not inquire about a person's immigration status during routine interactions.
The goal of these policies is to foster trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, encouraging all residents to report crimes and cooperate with police without fear of deportation. Boston continues to cooperate with federal authorities on major crimes such as human trafficking, child exploitation, and drug and weapons smuggling.
These cities aim to balance public safety with protecting the rights of all residents, regardless of their immigration status.
The Great Debate: Pros and Cons of Sanctuary Policies
1) Boston Mayor Michelle Wu speaks to Congress about sanctuary cities, slams Tom Homan. Watch her testimony before Congress on March 05, 2025. It is notable that Mayor Wu, is a member of the Democratic Party. In the 2024 presidential election, Massachusetts voters favored Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, who secured 61.22% of the state's vote. Specifically, in Suffolk County, which encompasses Boston, Harris received 74.29% of the vote.
2) Boston Mayor Michelle Wu Questioned Over Migrant Crisis Spending by Florida Congressman Byron Donalds. Watch some of his questions for Mayor Wu and other Mayors on March 05, 2025. It is notable that Congressman Donalds is a close President Donald Trump ally and on February 25, 2025 announced his intention to run for governor of Florida in 2026.
Sanctuary policies have ignited significant debate across the United States, with supporters and opponents presenting compelling arguments.
Supporters argue that these policies:
Build Trust:
When immigrants, regardless of their legal status, feel safe reporting crimes without fear of deportation, it fosters cooperation with law enforcement. This trust encourages victims and witnesses to come forward, leading to more effective policing and safer communities. For instance, mayors from cities like Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York have testified that their pro-immigrant policies have contributed to reducing crime rates by improving relationships between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
Protect Vulnerable Populations:
Sanctuary policies aim to shield undocumented immigrants from exploitation and ensure they can access essential services such as healthcare, education, and housing without fear. By limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, these policies help integrate immigrants into the community, promoting public health and safety for all residents. Studies have shown that sanctuary policies can lead to improved well-being among immigrant populations, as they are more likely to seek necessary services without the threat of deportation.
Opponents contend that sanctuary policies:
Undermine Federal Law:
Critics argue that by not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, sanctuary cities may be perceived as disregarding national immigration laws. This non-compliance can create a fragmented legal system where local jurisdictions adopt varying approaches to immigration enforcement, potentially undermining the rule of law. For example, during congressional hearings, some lawmakers accused sanctuary cities of protecting individuals who violate federal immigration laws, thereby challenging the uniform application of these laws across the country. In response to such concerns, several states, including Florida, have enacted legislation to prohibit sanctuary policies and mandate cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
In June 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law Senate Bill 168, which bans sanctuary cities in the state and requires local governments to support the enforcement of federal immigration laws. This move was part of a broader effort to ensure uniformity in the application of immigration laws and to prevent local jurisdictions from adopting policies that could be seen as undermining federal law.
Pose Public Safety Risks:
Opponents believe that limiting cooperation with federal authorities could allow individuals who pose public safety risks to remain in communities. They argue that sanctuary policies might result in the release of undocumented immigrants with criminal records back into the public, potentially endangering residents. This perspective was highlighted during congressional hearings where critics claimed that sanctuary policies enable criminals to evade federal authorities, thereby compromising community safety.
The debate over sanctuary policies continues to be a contentious issue, reflecting deep divisions over immigration enforcement and community safety.
California: Leading the Sanctuary Movement
California has been at the forefront of the sanctuary movement. In 2017, the state passed Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), known as the "California Values Act," which limited state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources for federal immigration enforcement. This move positioned California as a sanctuary state, inspiring similar policies elsewhere.
Zooming In: Sanctuary Policies in California Cities
San Diego's "Super Sanctuary" Policy:
In December 2024, San Diego County adopted a "Super Sanctuary" policy, further limiting local law enforcement's cooperation with federal immigration authorities beyond existing state laws. This policy aimed to enhance protections for undocumented immigrants but sparked significant debate within the community.
The designation wasn’t without opposition.
On March 11, 2025, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors convened to reconsider this policy.
Supervisor Jim Desmond proposed repealing the "Super Sanctuary" status, arguing that it impeded public safety by restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The vote resulted in a 2-1-1 split: Supervisors Desmond and Joel Anderson voted in favor of the repeal, Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe opposed, and Supervisor Terra Lawson-Remer abstained. Since three affirmative votes were required for the repeal to pass, the motion failed, leaving the existing policy in place.
This outcome reflects the ongoing debate in San Diego County over balancing community trust with public safety concerns in the context of immigration enforcement.
Los Angeles and San Francisco:
Both cities have long-standing sanctuary policies, continually adapting to changing political climates to protect their immigrant communities.
A Different Approach:
Not all regions in California align with sanctuary policies. For instance, Oroville declared itself a "non-sanctuary city," emphasizing full cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This highlights the diverse perspectives within the state.
Navigating the Divide: California Sheriffs' Responses to Sanctuary Policies
California's sanctuary state law, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), enacted in 2017, aims to limit local law enforcement's involvement in federal immigration enforcement. However, the implementation of this law has seen varied responses from sheriffs across the state, with some openly challenging its mandates.
San Diego County: Sheriff Kelly Martinez's Stance
In December 2024, following San Diego County Board of Supervisors making the county a "super sanctuary" city, the Sheriff had other thoughts.
Sheriff Kelly Martinez publicly opposed this policy, asserting her department's independence and commitment to public safety. She emphasized the necessity of collaborating with federal authorities, especially in cases involving serious criminal offenses, to protect all community members, including undocumented immigrants. Martinez's refusal to comply with the new policy underscores the tension between local governance and law enforcement priorities.
Tulare County: Sheriff Mike Boudreaux's Critique
In 2018, Tulare County experienced a tragic shooting spree by Gustavo Garcia, an undocumented immigrant with a criminal history who had been deported twice.
Following Garcia's release from custody due to misdemeanor charges, he embarked on a violent rampage, resulting in multiple casualties.
Sheriff Mike Boudreaux criticized SB 54, arguing that the law prevented his department from notifying ICE about Garcia's release, thereby hindering potential federal intervention. Boudreaux's concerns highlight the challenges sheriffs face when state laws limit their ability to collaborate with federal agencies.
Riverside County: Sheriff Chad Bianco's Political Response
Sheriff Chad Bianco of Riverside County has been a vocal opponent of California's sanctuary laws.
In February 2025, Bianco announced his candidacy for governor, with a central campaign promise to abolish SB 54.
He argues that the sanctuary law compromises public safety and places communities at risk. Bianco's gubernatorial bid underscores the politicization of sanctuary policies and reflects the broader debate on balancing state legislation with local law enforcement autonomy.
National Implications: Sheriffs Aligning with Federal Initiatives
Beyond California, sheriffs in various states have expressed readiness to support federal immigration enforcement more robustly. For instance, Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins has aligned with federal initiatives to expand programs like 287(g), which deputizes local law enforcement to perform certain immigration enforcement duties.
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions. These agreements enable trained local officers to identify, process, and detain individuals who violate immigration laws during their regular duties. The program aims to enhance collaboration between federal and local authorities to improve the enforcement of immigration laws.
This trend indicates a broader national discourse on the role of local law enforcement in immigration matters, with some sheriffs actively seeking to participate in federal efforts to increase deportations.
The diverse responses from California sheriffs to sanctuary policies reflect the complexities inherent in balancing state legislation, local law enforcement discretion, and federal immigration objectives. These differing stances continue to shape the evolving landscape of immigration enforcement within the state.
Impact on Immigrant Communities
Legal Immigrants and Naturalized Citizens:
While sanctuary policies primarily aim to protect undocumented immigrants, they can indirectly affect legal immigrants and naturalized citizens. For example, heightened scrutiny or changes in community dynamics might arise due to these policies.
Undocumented Immigrants:
For undocumented individuals, sanctuary policies offer a layer of protection, allowing them to engage more freely in community activities and access services without the looming fear of deportation.
Recent Developments: A Closer Look
Case Study: Mahmoud Khalil
In March 2025, ICE agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and pro-Palestinian activist, over his involvement in protests, despite him having no criminal charges. This incident has raised concerns about the potential targeting of legal immigrants involved in political activism. If the Trump administration extends its immigration enforcement to include legal immigrants, the protective distinction of sanctuary cities may no longer offer the safeguards it once did.
The Trump Administration's Stance
The administration has intensified its focus on immigration enforcement, affecting both undocumented individuals and legal immigrants.
This shift underscores the importance for all immigrants to stay informed about their rights and any policy changes.
Wrapping Up: Navigating the Complex Landscape of Sanctuary Policies
Sanctuary cities embody the intricate balance between local autonomy and federal authority. For immigrants and new Americans, understanding these policies is crucial. Staying informed and seeking reliable legal guidance can help navigate this evolving landscape.
Pathways to Citizenship: Why It Matters
If you are a green card holder, refugee, or someone eligible for naturalization, the best way to protect yourself from political crackdowns and shifting immigration policies is to become a U.S. citizen as soon as possible.
Citizenship is the strongest shield against deportation. As we have seen in Khalil’s case, even lawful permanent residents are now vulnerable to politically motivated attacks. Don’t wait until it’s too late.
Amba Law Immigration Solutions Is Here to Help
At Amba Law, we understand how critical this moment is for immigrants. Our team is dedicated to helping you navigate the naturalization process quickly and efficiently.
We offer:
✅ Personalized consultations to determine your eligibility for naturalization
✅ Step-by-step guidance through the application process
✅ Legal support if you face any immigration challenges
Now more than ever, your future in the U.S. must not be left to chance. Start your naturalization process today.
🔹 Visit AmbaLaw.com to schedule a consultation.
🔹 Call us today to get started.
Your safety, your rights, and your future matter. Take action now.
Legal Disclaimer
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal assistance, please contact Amba Law Immigration Solutions or another qualified immigration attorney for specific guidance related to your case.
