Sanctuary Cities And Sanctuary States And Federal Government In U.S.A. For Sale ?

Felons, Illegals And MS13 Welcome Reads "Official Sanctuary State" Sign At California Border and Other Sanctuary States in USA have been there for long, known for protecting undocumented immigrants in USA, but do they really face a threat from anyone winning the election? Donald Trump’s victory in the US Presidential Elections has led to a surge across the world with the kind of words he has been saying publicly or the agendas he has propagated till date. He might be a clear winner but still has a lot of resistance on his so called would be plan for his era as the US President ahead.

Show more

Illegal Immigration holds a place of paramount significance in his agenda of creating a physical wall across the southern border however the State Mayors especially the ones of sanctuary states are not ready to give up as, they have been carrying on their livelihood whether personal or professional and they provide cheap source of labor to local small industries.

Would Trump cut of funding of the sanctuary States? The immigrant sanctuaries continue to be a place to residence for many undocumented immigrants and with Trump going gaga about his propaganda to cut off those cities from federal funding has emerged to be a prospective major reason for face-off between Donald Trump and the sanctuary states. These sanctuary states work on the mechanism of not reporting any illegal immigration case to the US Immigration and Customs authorities thereby safeguarding all those who have been living there for long.

The term “sanctuary state” is a phrase that takes on different meanings in politically-charged conversations. Members of the Republican party see sanctuary states or sanctuary cities as places where illegal immigrants are protected. On the other hand, the Democratic view of sanctuary states are areas where illegal immigrants are protected from aggressive attempts of deportation.

In general, the term sanctuary state means a state that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement agents as much as possible to protect illegal immigrants that have come to this country to make a living. While some illegal immigrants are protected, those that commit serious crimes are turned over to authorities. Some proponents of sanctuary states and cities believe that the term is misleading, which is why some use the term “safe” to replace sanctuary.

Whether you agree with it or not, the fact remains that there are sanctuary cities and sanctuary states in the United States. This has come to light in recent years.

Are all undocumented immigrants under threat or only with Criminal Past?-There is a lot of distraught among the people living in such sanctuaries over what lies ahead. On one side if people are having stressful sleepless nights; on the other side, the State Mayors are assuring such families that the sanctuary states will remain to be so and nothing will be distorted. If Trump is to be believed then he did mention deporting somewhere around 2 million to 3 million undocumented immigrants as soon as he joins office but hinted on an unclear demarcation on deporting only those who have a criminal record in addition to them being staying illegally in the sanctuary states.

What the Mayors have to say?

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been reassuring the residents about Chicago’s status of sanctuary city to stay even after Trump’s administration not likely to support it. Moreover he also emphasized on the economic, cultural and intellectual importance the sanctuaries cities like Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Philadelphia hold in the US economy therefore cutting off all the funding and penalizing these states would ultimately do no good at all.

The Mayors of the sanctuary states are adamant on their states’ sanctuary status and are prepared to fight back Trump’s decision to defund them. The Mayor of Someville, Massachusettes in the meanwhile has issued an executive order (also called the Trust Act) that protects the immigrants with minors and or no criminal records from the possible deportation, they can face.

What lies ahead?
An uncertain future holds a lot many unanswered questions from the Trump administration. Moreover there is no clarity on the plan, he has for deporting the so many illegal immigrants who have been staying there since ages. If news is to be believed then there is quite a possibility that if localities continue to oppose Trump’s decision and opposing to help the federal government then Trump is going to make it hard for them to resist.

How illegal immigrants in USA impact US economy? Anti Immigrant Anger is there is USA, and rightly so. The immigrants, especially the illegal immigrants have resorted to wage cuts and in the current scenario of deckling Job availability in US, there appears to be no room for immigrants except in low paying sectors where natives are not willing to work. Before making any opinion on whether Trump would be able to rise on this anti immigrant sentiment, have a look on following data-Presently about 4% of the USA population is of foreign born immigrants; both legal and illegal.

Since touching peak of 12 million in 2007, number of undocumented immigrants has progressively been coming down. This is both due to strict enforcement of rules in US; improved border controls; low wage rate for undocumented workers as well as growing job opportunities in their home country as well. The policy of pushing illegal immigrants entering through Mexico borders in remote areas has deterred many potential illegal immigrants.

The illegal immigrants in many cases are using fake social security numbers and are paying taxes as well. Against the common perception of these immigrants not getting any public benefits, their children do receive certain benefits such as public schooling and emergency medical care. The children to such illegal immigrants born in US also qualify for welfare benefits. A little lesser than 1 million or say about 8% of the illegal immigrants qualify as “removable criminal aliens” as per statistics shared by Department of Homeland Security;

Removing all 11 million of illegal immigrants would be costing the exchequer an estimated amount of $600 billion; Besides, the industry employing such people would also get hit of $1 trillion hit to the economy Most USA Natives believe that undocumented immigrants are “as honest and hardworking” and support their case to grant them legalization status and to bring them “out of the shadows.”

Donald Trump came down heavily on illegal immigrants in Arizona. While he was successful in bring down number of illegal immigrants by 40%, correspondingly GDP rate also came down by 2% as did the unemployment rate, which went up by 2.5% The decline in number of illegal immigrants helped natives get better salaries, but as the worker shortage in crucial areas was created, overall impact was not healthy.

WHAT ARE SANCTUARY CITIES AND WHY DO THEY EXIST?
To combat closed borders, detention, and deportation, communities across the country are proclaiming sanctuary city status. Sanctuary cities exist from coast to coast and promote the ideals of human rights, separation of local and federal law, and empowerment of communities to grow with the help of immigrants. Cities that pursue sanctuary city policies do so for various reasons, all of which relate on some level to human rights and community growth.

WHAT ARE SANCTUARY CITIES?
The phrase sanctuary city is not a legal term, but one developed over time and more recently reflecting a response to ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) policies and actions. In general, a sanctuary city is a community with a policy, written or unwritten, that discourages local law enforcement from reporting the immigration status of individuals unless it involves investigation of a serious crime. These sanctuary communities go beyond cities, though. One can find entire counties and states declaring sanctuary status.

These communities typically do not honor requests by ICE to detain undocumented immigrants whom local agents apprehend for misdemeanor crimes or investigations. Many in sanctuary cities also refuse to deputize their local officers as federal agents, a necessary technicality if those local officers carry out the duties of ICE agents. There is no specific federal law against sanctuary city policies.

LISTS OF SANCTUARY STATES IN THE UNITED STATES
Sometimes the term “sanctuary” encompasses more than just a city. There are many counties across the United States that claim sanctuary county policies, and several states that consider their entire geographical location as a sanctuary. As of March 2021, the following states claim sanctuary status: People's Republic Of Below:

California - Colorado - Connecticut - Illinois - Massachusetts - New Jersey
- New Mexico - New York - Oregon - Vermont - Washington

In addition, some of these sanctuary states also designate counties to have policies in place that discourage or prohibit cooperation between local law and federal agents when dealing with undocumented immigrants.

WHAT DOES A SANCTUARY CITY POLICY REALLY DO?
In terms of immigration issues, sanctuary city policies are often designed to respond to a series of events involving undocumented individuals. The following is an example of such a series of events, and how the sanctuary policies apply.

Initial Contact with Law Enforcement: This is often something relatively common, such as an officer pulling over a car for speeding or responding to a domestic incident. This initial contact has nothing to do with citizenship status.
Law Enforcement Detains an Individual: Law enforcement books and takes fingerprints of the individual at the local or county jail. Per protocol, these fingerprints go through the FBI database. ICE regulations require that state and federal agents share information regarding inmates.
ICE Gets Involved: If ICE records show the individual is undocumented, ICE sends a request to the local jail to detain the individual for an additional 48 hours beyond the original release day and time. This time buffer allows ICE to seek a warrant and begin the deportation process.
Local Authorities React: According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, local officers do not have to comply with ICE requests for additional detention, because doing so is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The reaction of the local authorities depends on any sanctuary policies in place. Cities or counties with sanctuary policies typically decline the requests and release the individual once the appropriate time for the initial contact has been met. This might be because of charges dropped, bail set and met, or no jail time sentenced. Some sanctuary cities will reject all detain requests they receive from ICE, while others comply under certain circumstances including gang involvement, prior felony records, or terrorist watch list status.

Cities without sanctuary policies often comply with ICE and detain the individual while ICE seeks a warrant for deportation. The undocumented individual might remain in the local jail during the deportation process, or ICE might transfer that person to a federal prison. Jails and prisons that detain undocumented immigrants often receive federal funds for doing so.

WHY ARE THERE SANCTUARY CITIES?
Sanctuary cities today refer to those places where local law enforcement does not carry out the duties of ICE without a warrant or local court order. The history of sanctuary cities, however, focuses on the term sanctuary – or safe place. In 1971, Berkeley, CA became the first city to claim this status. Instead of questions of immigration, this sanctuary declared Berkeley a safe place for U.S. Navy soldiers who resisted the war in Vietnam.

Moving forward, sanctuary city policies often centered around supporting faith-based organizations and movements. This included those cities where religious movements were offering safe places for not only war resisters, but for refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. In the 1980s and 1990s, communities began to see sanctuary as more of a human rights issue than a religious one. The focus moved increasingly toward developing policies that would limit the involvement of local police with federal issues of immigration.

MODERN INTERPRETATION OF SANCTUARY CITIES
As political debates surrounding immigration increased in the 2000s, so has the discussion around sanctuary cities. Throughout the country, many communities have reacted to harsh treatment of immigrants with the development of sanctuary city (or county or state) policies. They seek to provide refuge for immigrants, instead of persecution.

WHY DO COMMUNITIES CHOOSE TO BE SANCTUARY CITIES?
In alignment with the history of sanctuary city policies, many communities are now choosing to develop policies that separate local law enforcement from potential deportation activities at the federal level. Under both Democratic and Republican presidents, the focus on deporting undocumented individuals has been increasing. This includes individuals who are law-abiding, and parents working and raising children in the U.S. There are several reasons why communities enact policies and regulations to define themselves as sanctuary cities.

A Human Rights Standpoint: Many people across the country see immigration as a positive process and human rights issue, and consider it the duty of U.S. citizens and officials to help protect all people. This includes people who are fleeing wars, poverty, and famine. Chicago is one such city, where the sanctuary policies – also known as the Welcoming City Ordinance – state that Chicago officials will not help investigate or prosecute individuals based solely on their resident status. Chicago also does not discriminate against non-citizens for city services intended for those in need, and even offers a local ID to use for transportation and library access.
A Constitutional Standpoint: Under the Constitution of the United States, being an undocumented immigrant is not actually a crime – it is a civil violation. Criminal violations allow for punishments such as jail time. Civil violations result in penalties. Currently. the accepted penalty for being in the United States undocumented is deportation. There are many who see this as a punishment, and therefore a human rights issue.
The undercurrent theme of the reasons for supporting sanctuary cities aligns with the idea that the United States is a country of immigrants. The generations that came before us empowered the cities of today, and communities across the country want to maintain that optimistic and humanistic point of view.

It is important to remember that sanctuary city officials do not promote breaking the law. Officials in these cities still take and report fingerprints to the FBI, as directed. Sanctuary policies allow local officers to decline enforcing a federal request for detention during deportation considerations. Instead of holding an individual in jail beyond the regular release date, local officials follow constitutional guidelines and their own legal regulations.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF SANCTUARY CITIES?
Communities across the country grapple with immigration issues. From a human rights standpoint, welcoming immigrants and providing them with resources and support will accomplish far more than detaining and deporting them ever will. The evidence shows that undocumented immigrants do not pose significant threats to communities, and they in fact positively impact them.

Sanctuary cities report positive outcomes, including the following:

Sanctuary cities have lower than average crime rates
Household incomes are higher in sanctuary cities
The poverty rate in sanctuary cities is lower on average than cities without these policies
Law enforcement at the local levels want to continue building positive relationships with all citizens – documented and undocumented. This encourages them to report crimes and concerns without fear of reprisal, and promotes community building instead of separating.

As the United States continues to grow both in population and ideals, it is important to look at immigration through the lens of humanity, rather than as a price tag for prisons. Sanctuary cities and communities continue to pave the way as examples.

Do You Live in One of the 11 Sanctuary States or the District of Columbia?
What Is A Sanctuary State?
Sanctuary policies are those followed by towns, cities, counties, states, and other jurisdictions that restrict most forms of cooperation with federal immigration authorities. While jurisdictions are not compelled by federal law to participate in federal immigration enforcement activities, federal law (8 USC § 1373) prohibits them from actively obstructing enforcement of federal law. In addition, sanctuary policies may violate the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment.

Most importantly, sanctuary policies place the public at risk by preventing the federal authorities from locating, arresting, and prosecuting criminal aliens. The result is that all residents, including legal immigrants and illegal aliens, are in danger of being victimized, even killed, by criminal illegal aliens who benefited from protections afforded by sanctuary policies.

Currently, there are 11 states in the nation that have through executive action or passage of a law declared themselves “sanctuary states.” Although not a state, the District of Columbia is also considered a sanctuary jurisdiction. All are part the approximately 600 sanctuary jurisdictions in the U.S., most of which were established after 2000.

People's Republic Of CALIFORNIA
California became a sanctuary state after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, in October 2017.

With almost 40 million residents, California is the most populous sanctuary state.

At least 16 cities and/or counties in Southern California have expressed opposition to the state law by either filing lawsuits or passing local ordinances.

People's Republic Of COLORADO
In response to Colorado’s action, the Trump administration legally withheld some $2.7 million in previously approved federal law enforcement grants.

Saying the state’s sanctuary law is not strong enough, state Sen. Julie Gonzalez introduced legislation in February to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from entering courthouses to make civil arrests.

People's Republic Of CONNECTICUT
The Nutmeg State became a sanctuary state when its legislature passed the Trust Act in 2013, and it was signed by Gov. Dannel Malloy (D).

The law prohibits state and local law enforcement from honoring ICE immigration detainers under most circumstances.

In June 2019, Gov. Ned Lamont (D) signed legislation, which went into effect in October, that further expanded the 2013 sanctuary statute.

People's Republic Of ILLINOIS
Illinois became a sanctuary state in 2017 when Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) signed the Illinois Trust Act

It is the sixth most populous state in the union, making it one of the largest sanctuary states.

In 2019, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) signed three bills expanding the sanctuary law. The bills together would ban alien detention centers, prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with ICE, and would limit immigration enforcement at public schools and universties, libraries, hospitals, and courthouses.

People's Republic Of MASSACHUSETTS
In July 2017, Massachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court issued a ruling in the Lunn v. Commonwealth case which effectively made it a sanctuary state.

According to the Pew Research Center, the Bay State’s illegal alien population grew more than any other state’s from 2007 to 2017 — a 60,000 spike that costs Massachusetts taxpayers and risks public safety.

The town of Cambridge went even further in 2020 when it passed a law advising police not to arrest illegal aliens for driving without a license.

People's Republic Of NEW JERSEY
New Jersey became a sanctuary state on March 15, 2019 when a November 29, 2018 directive issued by state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal (D) went into effect.

This appears to be the first case of a state being made into a sanctuary for illegal aliens by the unilateral executive action of a non-elected official (Grewal was appointed by Democratic Governor Phil Murphy).

In January 2020, the Department of Justice filed a brief supporting two towns’ legal challenges to Grewal’s Immigrant Trust Directive.

People's Republic Of NEW YORK
The Empire State became an illegal alien sanctuary on the basis of a September 15, 2017 executive order signed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D), which covered state agencies, but not local law enforcement.

In November 2018, a New York state appeals court ruled (in the case of Francis v. DeMarco) that state and local law enforcement cannot honor ICE immigration detainers.

New York began allowing illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses in 2019.

People's Republic Of OREGON
Oregon’s sanctuary statute was enacted in July 1987, making it the first sanctuary state.

The law prohibits the use of public resources to arrest or detain illegal aliens whose only crime is violating U.S. immigration laws.

In 2020, Democrats in the state legislature attempted to force the Northern Oregon Regional Correctional Facility to stop contracting with the federal government to detain illegal and criminal aliens.

People's Republic Of RHODE ISLAND
In 2014, Gov. Lincoln Chafee, elected as an Independent but switched to the Democratic Party, directed the state’s executive agencies, and its Department of Corrections, to stop honoring federal immigration detainers without a court order.

In 2017 and 2018, state lawmakers failed to pass a bill barring ICE personnel and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) from entering schools, hospitals, and courthouses without a judicial warrant.

The Ocean State has approximately 30,000 illegal aliens and they comprised 2.9 percent of the total state population in 2014.

People's Republic Of VERMONT
Vermont became an illegal alien sanctuary state in 2011 when Gov. Pete Shumlin (D) implemented a new policy – on the basis of State Police Rules and Regulations VSP-DIR-301 – that was prompted by the arrest of two Mexican nationals after being stopped for speeding.

In 2017, Gov. Phil Scott (R) signed Vermont Senate Bill 79, which expanded Vermont’s sanctuary policy to apply to local authorities (while the 2011 policy applied only to the State Police).

In 2020, as the result of a lawsuit filed by a pro-sanctuary special interest group, the state Department of Motor Vehicles pledged not to report illegal immigrants to the federal authorities.

People's Republic Of WASHINGTON
Washington state has been an illegal alien sanctuary since Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) February 2017 executive order, which applied to state agencies.

In May 2019, Inslee signed legislation, known as the Keep Washington Working Act, codifying and further expanding his executive order by barring local jails from holding people based solely on ICE detainers.

In February, the Trump administration sued King County, Washington over its policy of preventing ICE from using its airports for deportation flights.

People's Republic Of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
While not a state, the nation’s capital first moved toward sanctuary status in 1984 when then-Mayor Marion Barry (D) issued a memo prohibiting D.C. officers and employees from asking anyone about their immigration status, with a narrow exception only for determining eligibility for public benefits.

This was expanded by former Mayor Vince Gray (D) in 2011 and the DC Council in 2012.

In October 2019, the 2012 law was further reinforced when the DC Council unanimously passed emergency legislation, which prohibits holding detained illegal aliens longer than citizens or legal immigrants or notifying ICE of illegal alien release dates.

Top 5 States with the Most Illegal Immigrant Sanctuaries. - Illegal Immigration
There are currently 11 states in the United States of America who are classified as “Sanctuary States” for illegal immigrants. Within these states, are cities who have adopted policies to protect illegal immigrants from having their immigration status investigated by federal authorities. These cities are known as “Sanctuary Cities,” which can be defined as the following:

“a city in which the local government and police protect undocumented immigrants and refugees from deportation by federal authorities sanctuary cities where law enforcement cannot question crime suspects about their immigration status.” Sanctuary Cities as being:

“…applied to jurisdictions that have policies in place designed to limit cooperation with or involvement in federal immigration enforcement actions. Cities, counties and some states have a range of informal policies as well as actual laws that qualify as “sanctuary” positions.

Most of the policies center around not cooperating with federal law enforcement on immigration policies. Many of the largest cities in the country have forms of such policies.”

In short, Sanctuary Cities are jurisdictions in which federal immigration laws are obstructed and essentially violated. These locations harbor migrants who break federal immigration laws and arrive here illegally or overstay their visas. In fact, in many of these states, entire counties are illegal immigrant sanctuaries.

These are the states from this list with the most Sanctuary Cities & Counties:

People's Republic Of Oregon
In total, there are 30 counties who are illegal immigrant sanctuaries in Oregon. There are only 36 counties in the entire state. In addition, the cities of Eugene and Springfield are also sanctuaries.

People's Republic Of Washington
Local politicians in the state of Washington have created 18 sanctuary counties for illegal immigrants in that state, including King County, home to the state’s largest city Seattle. Seattle also classifies itself as a Sanctuary City. The state has 39 counties in total.

People's Republic Of Pennsylvania
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is home to 15 Sanctuary Counties for illegal immigrants. While Pennsylvania is at the top of this list, the concentration of illegal immigrant sanctuaries is far less than the above states listed, as there are 67 counties in the state. Philadelphia is also classified as a Sanctuary City.

People's Republic Of California
The Golden State is tied with Pennsylvania on this list, with 15 Sanctuary Counties. But like Pennsylvania, the state has far more counties than Oregon & Washington, with a total of 58. The cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkley, Watsonville, and Santa Ana are Sanctuary Cities.

People's Republic Of Colorado
The Centennial State rounds out the top 5 on this list, with 13 Sanctuary Counties. There are 64 counties in the state. The city of Aurora is also a Sanctuary City.

Aside from being a flagrant violation of the country’s immigration laws, the existence of these sanctuaries creates potentially dangerous environments for the legal residents and citizens who live there. When it becomes local policy to shield lawbreakers from scrutiny, the slippery slope inevitably leads to letting criminals who are capable of much worse than illegal immigration walk the streets freely. This puts Law Enforcement and their communities at increased, unnecessary, and completely avoidable risk. Most of all, these sanctuaries only incentivize and perpetuate the illegal immigration crisis that this country is currently being subjected to.

Arguments in favor of sanctuary cities include the concept that the removal of fear of deportation allows undocumented immigrants to feel safe reporting crime, leading to statistically lower crime rates in some of these cities. However, while the benefits for those who are on the path to obtaining legal citizenship are numerous, the fact remains that these sanctuary cities can still obstruct departments from removing unwanted criminal offenders from a country in which they are residing illegally. Here’s a closer look at sanctuary cities pros and cons.

Keeping People's Republic Of America Safe: How Sanctuary Cities Can Do More Harm Than Good

Illegal Immigration, Police Views and Opinions
The concept of the sanctuary city is one that has evolved since their first appearance in the 1980s. Historically speaking, the idea of a sanctuary city stems from the plight of immigrants fleeing religious and other violent persecution. In turn, many cities opened their doors to those fleeing dangerous conditions. In the 1980s, many American cities began operating with sanctuary legislation as a challenge to the government’s stance on refugees coming from Central America. The idea of a faith-based sanctuary city began in the Southwest region of the country and has since taken root in over 500 jurisdictions around the United States. In the face of the current immigration crisis and the divisiveness of the politics surrounding it, it’s time to look at the functionality and ongoing purpose of these sanctuary cities.

The tension between sanctuary cities in the U.S. and the federal government has escalated in recent years. Arguments in favor of sanctuary cities include the concept that the removal of fear of deportation allows undocumented immigrants to feel safe reporting crime, leading to statistically lower crime rates in some of these cities. However, while the benefits for those who are on the path to obtaining legal citizenship are numerous, the fact remains that these sanctuary cities can still obstruct departments such as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from removing unwanted criminal offenders from a country in which they are residing illegally. Here’s a closer look at sanctuary cities pros and cons.

In 2018, the People's Republic Of U.S.A. Justice Department sued the state of California for its refusal to comply with detainer requests and other protocol put forth by ICE. For its part, California has held to its sanctuary statutes fiercely, promising illegal immigrants asylum and encouraging them to integrate into their communities, to feel safe and at home. However, the Justice Department and the Trump administration took issue with this, stating that these sanctuary laws actually put undeniable strain on federal law enforcement and ICE by not cooperating. In the efforts of ICE to remove violent criminals and multiple offenders from the country, many sanctuary cities are making this next to impossible. As a result, the free reign of violent criminals who have been released back into the public after local law enforcement refused to complete an ICE detainer request for further investigation has resulted in crimes that could potentially have been prevented.

Take the example of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant who accumulated seven felony convictions and was deported five times, re-entering the U.S. after each deportation. After another release from detention in San Francisco, Lopez-Sanchez was charged with the shooting death of a local woman. The details surrounding the case are fraught with angst and tension, but the fact remains that the five-time deportee returned to the country and took the life of a citizen. This is just a single example of the failure and breakdown of relationships between local and state law enforcement and the federal organizations tasked with protecting borders. In fact, during an eight month period of time in 2014, over 60 percent of the undocumented immigrants released from detention had previous criminal convictions.

The root of the issue at hand here is an absence of cooperation between the levels of law enforcement. Digging further, the idea of loyalty to the idea of open arms and welcoming those fleeing persecution permeates those who have dug in on the side of the fence that wants to block ICE from making raids and arrests in sanctuary cities. At the very least, many sanctuary cities have put protocol into place that prevent employees from having to inquire about a detainee’s citizenship status. In other cases, local and state law enforcement can refuse a detainer request submitted by ICE for a detainee who has piqued interest for further investigation.

In an effort to thwart these sanctuary cities from refusing to comply with detainer requests and other protocol, President Trump in 2018 issued an executive order stating that a jurisdiction’s refusal to comply would make them ineligible for federal grants and other financial support. While federal courts would eventually strike this order down as unconstitutional, the bottom line remains that the Trump administration is set on enforcing stricter protocol when it comes to removing violent and repeat criminal offenders from their illegal residence in the United States.

At the end of the day, the federal law enforcement agencies such as ICE still have the authority to detain and deport undocumented immigrants. In addition, voluntary programs such as 287(g) allow local and state law enforcement to undergo proper training so that they may also do their duties of enforcing immigration law. It is beneficial for states and local law enforcement to work with ICE in a positive manner in order to keep the U.S. and its citizens safe.

Instead of creating more legal red tape and loopholes that allow criminal offenders to roam freely, law enforcement agencies need to work together to bring criminals to justice while allowing those who are not offenders to obtain citizenship on the legal path. The resources that are wasted in the refusal to communicate and comply are preventing the country from moving forward to a modern immigration model that both encourages people to want to come to the country in a legal way and also discourages criminals from crossing the border illegally and committing crimes in the U.S.

The path forward is unfortunately murky. The People's Republic Of U.S.A. Constitution does not clearly outline protocol for immigration law, which makes the battle between state and federal governments that much more unclear and divisive. With the focus on power moves and financial backing, immigrants will find that they’re no more than political pawns. Only by focusing on the foundational values of the U.S. — the idea that safe harbor can and should be found for those with sufficient reason to flee their current homes — can local and federal law enforcement find a way to work together for the greater good of the country.

Crimes could be avoided if immigration control was able to properly do its job. Sanctuary cities’ refusal to comply on such a massive scale is inhibiting this process. For instance, an undocumented immigrant cannot be arrested in many sanctuary cities until or unless they commit a crime on U.S. soil. With this idea in mind, remember that many violent criminals cross into the U.S. illegally. For this, in a sanctuary city, they cannot be arrested by local law enforcement. Instead, it’s a waiting game to find out if the undocumented immigrant commits a crime, violent or otherwise. Only then can the offender be detained — but whether or not ICE is contacted for further investigation is a point of contention and where the process becomes even more bogged down. In many of these cases, the offenders are simply released without ICE being notified.

Examples such as this are not a rarity, and they are symptomatic of the greater issues facing immigration law in this country. Proper and fair legislation needs to be put into place to allow immigration officers to do their jobs. The priority should always be public safety and encouraging immigrants to obtain citizenship legally. In order to achieve both of these objectives, we must have a law enforcement environment that promotes cooperation and fair practice.

American Police Officers Alliance stands by the idea that criminal illegal immigrants cannot be allowed to have sanctuary in certain cities because it adds untenable strain to local police officers, infrastructure and resources. American Police Officers Alliance support initiatives to keep our cities free from sanctuary for the safety of American citizens.

Border security remains a hot topic of discussion, and no matter what side of the political spectrum individuals may fall on the fact remains that protecting both borders from illicit or illegal activity and crossings is of utmost importance for the safety of all involved.

Protecting Both Borders of the United States Is a Priority

Illegal Immigration
While much attention has been directed at the tension afflicting the southern border of the United States that is shared with Mexico, problems are also affecting the country’s borders on the northern end. Border security remains a hot topic of discussion, and no matter what side of the political spectrum individuals may fall on the fact remains that protecting both borders from illicit or illegal activity and crossings is of utmost importance for the safety of all involved.

Even the most casual follower of news headlines knows that much conflict has arisen at the southern border as thousands of asylum seekers from south and central America make their case for refuge in the U.S. Indeed, the rising numbers and corresponding tension at the Mexican border has prompted the sending of reinforcement border security agents, some redirected from their posts at the Canadian border. But this presents another issue, and one that’s gained more steam in recent months: a rise in illegal border crossings at the Canadian edge.

If we are to continue the protection of the United States and its citizens from would be human traffickers and drug dealers, then border security must be a prime focus on both the northern and southern borders. Statistics show a 91 percent increase in illegal border crossings coming from Canada during fiscal year 2018, which is an alarming trend, although the number of apprehensions is much lower than that at the Mexican border due to sheer number differentials. This quiet rise in illegal crossings is alarming due to the listing resources, funding, and staffing that represents the current state of affairs at the U.S.’ northern edge.

It may seem more innocuous to cross the border from Canada, and unfortunately many illegal immigrants have figured out a way to circumvent proceedings at the southern border. Canada passed legislation stating that immigrants or asylum seekers coming from Mexico or Romania do not need to have a valid visa in order to be granted entry into the country. Because of this loophole, some have purchased plane tickets to Canada and then crossed into the U.S. from there because of the decreased risk of apprehension at the border.

Plan to increase protection at the Canadian border
In 2018, the Department of Homeland Security put forth a strategy designed to increase protection at the Canadian border. This Northern Border Strategy is comprised of three goals:

Enhance border security operations
Facilitate and safeguard lawful trade and travel
Promote cross-border resilience

In order to meet these goals, several objectives were outlined in this plan, including the identification of a need for more resources. The Canadian border spans over 5,500 miles, much of which is sparse, bare land that is unmanned. This makes for a challenge for border patrol agents, though much of the illegal apprehensions and crossings have occurred in what is known as the Swanton border sector comprised of upstate New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire.

Indeed, the northern border is often seen as a “de facto safety valve” for immigrants who have entered the country illegally. If they can make it to the northern border, chances are they may be able to find safe harbor in Canada. If they can make it to Canada first, crossing back into the U.S. proves to be less daunting because of the decreased manpower put in place to stop them.

The number of apprehensions at the Canadian border has increased each year. Among these apprehensions are human traffickers and drug dealers moving large amounts of cocaine — both areas of focus that must be monitored and dealt with appropriately in order to prevent a larger scale problem. And while the Trump administration has mostly focused on the tensions at the southern border, attention must also be paid to the increasing numbers in the north.

Commonly named issues that are hindering northern border security from proper enforcement are staffing, resource issues, and lack of funding. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security determined that the northern border posed much smaller of a threat. They have committed personnel in the following numbers as a part of their Northern Border Strategy: “3,600 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Officers, 2,200 U.S. Border Patrol Agents, 180 CBP Agriculture Specialists, 230 CBP Air and Marine personnel, 1,300 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Special Agents, and 8,000 U.S. Coast Guard (USCG).”

Another issue facing the northern border is that of terrorist threats. “The large volume of legitimate travel across the Northern Border and the long stretches of difficult terrain between ports of entry (POEs) provide potential opportunities for individuals who may pose a national security risk to enter the United States undetected,” the Northern Border Strategy document proclaims, although it goes on to say that these threats are still lower than in other areas.

Now, as tensions continue to need support at the Mexican border, more personnel are being shifted to this area in an effort to protect the border. This more aggressive approach should not overshadow the slightly smaller but no less important issues plaguing the north border. Already in 2020, multiple illegal immigrant apprehensions and drug seizures have been noted at the Canadian border, pointing to the fact that this is still a very real issue that must be paid attention to.

Protecting our borders is a big issue as we head into the 2020 presidential election. It is important to remember, however, that the southern border is not the only border that needs protection and policing. With thousands of miles to cover, complicated by topography and weather extremes, the Canadian border must be protected in order to continue the protection of the United States. Giving free rein to pass into the U.S. illegally due to low resources or staffing should not be the way we allow these problems to continue. Only by forming a strong strategy to both staff and manage the work at both borders can we continue to build a stronger, safer United States for all who want to be here safely and legally.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal law enforcement agency operating under the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with enforcing immigration regulations and preventing transnational crime. Often, this work is supplemented with support from local sheriff and police jurisdictions — but at a cost.

Should Police Operations Use Their Resources to Assist ICE?

Illegal Immigration
Today’s political climate has seen a rise in focus on immigration enforcement in many areas of the U.S. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal law enforcement agency operating under the Department of Homeland Security, is tasked with enforcing immigration regulations and preventing transnational crime. Often, this work is supplemented with support from local sheriff and police jurisdictions — but at a cost.

While some jurisdictions have offered their support in enforcing ICE initiatives, the cost often comes in the form of lost resources and personnel who have been pulled away to work on ICE projects.

When a local jurisdiction is enlisted to assist ICE with enforcing immigration law, several facets of everyday operations are taken up. Law enforcement officers may be pulled away to assist with the enforcement of warrants and detainment of illegal immigrants. Holding facilities and jails may have space taken up for ICE agents to detain those who are found to be in the country illegally until further action can be taken. The local citizens of these jurisdictions often find themselves losing trust in local police if they work with ICE, which has a surly reputation for murky boundaries and ever-shifting policies.

All of these can cause further reaching issues with police and sheriff’s offices. Some cities, operating under sanctuary city laws, have flat out refused to help ICE in its efforts, others have only offered up assistance in cases of violent or extreme/dangerous crime. In contrast, other jurisdictions have dedicated the full services of their staff to assist the efforts of ICE.

ICE has formal agreements, known as 287(g) agreements, with 75 cities and counties throughout the country that enable local law enforcement to assist ICE agents. Another program, a Warrant Service Officer (WSO) program, allows sheriffs and police officers who obtain this certification to make immigration-related arrests, furthering a cooperative partnership between ICE and local law enforcement.

However, many areas do feel that these efforts are unfair. Aside from citizens’ personal feelings on the actions of ICE and immgration laws in general, they often feel that the assistance of local jurisdictions is an unfair use of resources that are otherwise limited. Whether it’s low staffing, large areas of territory to cover, or a frequency of higher profile or more threatening crime, often the use of local resources for ICE purposes does more harm than good when it comes to citizen approval.

When coupled with the generally poor reputation of ICE and its agents, which are often described as lacking boundaries and shifting policies to fit current needs or behaviors, there is a lot of potential fallout that can occur when a local office is involved with immigration enforcement. This can have detrimental effects on many aspects of local operations, including leading to a lack of voter support in future election cycles.

Furthermore, it’s the opinion of many that unless violent or serious crimes are committed, there are other solutions to the so-called immigration problem in the U.S. And while ICE may be tasked with enforcing the law, this may often be something that local officers don’t wish to be involved with. Particularly in areas where crime is prevalent, focusing on keeping a community safe and crime free should be the utmost priority for local law enforcement. Spreading resources, many of which are already limited, can be damaging for a community and the effects can reach far into the future.

The rates for property and violent crimes are soaring across many parts of the United States. This is concerning for police officers who are out there trying to protect their communities, especially for those officers that are working to protect the most dangerous cities across the country. Find out the most dangerous cities for police officers.

The Most Dangerous Cities for Police Officers

Police Issues, Police Jobs and Careers
The rates for property and violent crimes are soaring across many parts of the United States. This is concerning for police officers who are out there trying to protect their communities, especially for those officers that are working to protect the most dangerous cities across the country.

Police One recently did an interesting analysis of the FBI crime data. According to the FBI, property crimes include offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Violent crimes are considered to be murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Cities with the Most Violent Crimes

The majority of the cities that are on the Top 10 Dangerous Cities for Violent Crimes list consist of cities that are in the mid-west with the exception of Baltimore, Maryland as well as Stockton and Oakland, California.

St. Louis, Missouri is number one in all of the United States as the most dangerous city to be a cop because it is the most dangerous city for violent crimes. With a population of 317,000, the total violent crime rate is 2,781 which equals out to be 877 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

Oakland, California is the tenth most dangerous city for violent crimes with a rate of 703 per 100,000 people. While the population is about 100,000 more than St. Louis, Oakland’s total violent crime rate is 2,952.

Violent crime rates aren’t nearly as high as property crime rates but they are still concerning.

Cities with the Most Property Crimes
Property crime extends all across the country. The state of Washington happens to have 4 cities on the list of most dangerous cities by property crime.

Springfield, Missouri only has a population of 166,000 people yet their total property crime rate is 6,283 which totals out to be 3,765 per 100,000 people. Spokane and Tacoma are both cities in Washington and they follow as number 2 and number 3 on the list of most dangerous cities by property crime.

Renton and Kent are also both in the state of Washington and they end the list as number 9 and number 10 on the list. Their populations are both under 130,000 with property crime rates around 2,900 per 100,000 people.

Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Florida all have cities on the list of most dangerous cities by property crime. With a growing housing market in a lot of these cities, property crime rates appear to be on the rise.

Moving in the Right Direction
Regardless of the violent and property crimes all that occur all throughout the United States, police officers continue to do their job each and every day. Moving forward, we hope that each state takes measures to try and reduce these crimes so that our police officers can remain safe while protecting the lives of people within their communities.

Show less