Sanctuary cities refer to counties, cities, or towns that seek to protect undocumented immigrants by failing to cooperate with the requests of federal detention, commonly through a ‘don't ask, don't tell policy.' The cities emerged from the early 1990s and late 1980s Sanctuary Movement that involved religious congregations helping undocumented Guatemalan and Salvadorian families to settle in the U.S., by directly violating the requirements of the U.S immigration authorities who extensively limited the asylum requests from the countries, and ended up denying over 90% of the petitions filed by immigrants who were escaping the anti-communist violence in Guatemala and El Salvador ( Villazor & Gulasekaram, 2018) . The sanctuary activities supported their move by arguing that by denying the immigrants asylum, the federal government was violating both the domestic and international refugee law. The supporters of the idea of the cities maintain that they are vital in protecting both the undocumented immigrants and the citizens. However, opponents of sanctuary cities often argue that the cities act as safe havens for illegal immigrants, who subsequently pose a fundamental security threat to the United States. The debate has recently intensified with President Trump signing an executive order that directs the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General to stop federal funding to the sanctuary jurisdictions on the argument that they cause extensive harm to the people of American as well as the fabric of the American republic. Based on these arguments, this paper seeks to examine whether it is legal for the Federal Government to deny funding to the sanctuary cities that openly reject the rule of law or those that willingly harbor illegal immigrants.
Sanctuary Jurisdictions and their Role in Protecting Undocumented Immigrants
The United States has approximately 364 counties, 39 cities, and four states that have established sanctuary policies ( Martínez, Martínez ‐ Schuldt & Cantor, 2018) . The rules include Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and California. Some of the cities with such policies include Chicago, Boston, New York, Tucson, and Las Vegas. The significant counties that have the sanctuary policies include Washington, Oregon, New York, Florida, Colorado, and California. Los Angeles was the first city to implement the Sanctuary City policy, but it mainly focused on the undocumented immigrants who were already residing in the U.S ( Martínez, Martínez ‐ Schuldt & Cantor, 2018) . The Police Chief in the city enacted the Special Order No.40 that required police officers to refrain from asking about one's immigration status but instead focused on the corresponding provision of services to everyone. San Francisco, on the other hand, passed the City of Refuge resolution and the City of Refuge ordinance in 1985 and 1989 respectively, which required city employees to end immigration policing and instead work on providing services to all residents irrespective of their immigration status ( Brady, 2017) .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The sanctuary jurisdictions have established provisions that limit the extent to which they enforce federal immigration laws. The limiting provisions principally aim at protecting immigrants against racial discrimination and promoting community cooperation, especially in matters relating to fighting crime among other factors ( Brady, 2017) . The provisions are mainly in the form of state resolutions, municipal ordinances, and executive orders. Besides, the scope of these provisions differs according to locality. Some rules forbid the use of state resources in enforcing federal immigration laws while others prohibit law enforcement officers from inquiring about one's immigration status. Examples of the provisions include declining the Immigration and customs enforcement (ICE) requests, barring police investigations or inquiries into an individual’s immigration status, prohibiting police officers from making arrests relating to the federal immigration law violations, and hindering communication with the federal immigration authorities ( Starr, 2017) . Although the provisions differ significantly, their primary objective is to achieve a more inclusive local enforcement policy by stifling cooperation with the federal government.
Sanctuary Cities Debate
The development of sanctuary cities has received extensive criticism since they are perceived as violating the immigration policy. The policy is regarded as a federal power, indicating that the national immigration policies preempt the provisions of the local governments. The murder of Kate Steinle that occurred in 2015 in San Francisco has heightened the debate, whereby the undocumented immigrants are primarily perceived as a critical security threat to the country ( Lasch et al., 2018) . The crime was committed by Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant, who possessed a long history of immigration violations and several deportations. These factors extensively influenced President Trump’s plan to stop all the federal funding to the sanctuary cities.
In response to the criticism, advocates of the sanctuary cities postulate the participation of local enforcement bodies in the federal immigration matters largely undermines the policing efforts of the local community, drains local and state resources, causes the violation of constitutional rights by the untrained police, and distracts police officers from their primary role, which involves fighting crime ( Rice, 2017) . Conversely, the opponents of the cities maintain that localities that limit their assistance to the federal immigration enforcement act as illegal safe havens for the criminal aliens. President’s Trump’s more and the ideas of the opponents of the sanctuary cities are majorly informed by Section 1373 of the constitution, which focuses on the information flow to the ICE ( Rice, 2017) . According to Lasch et al. (2018), most of the provisions that the sanctuary cities have implemented in a bid to protect the undocumented immigrants inhibit the flow of information to the ICE in matters relating to the status of the immigrants.
Moreover, the conflicting ideas between the opposers and supporters of the sanctuary cities emanate from the idea that the federal immigration enforcement is responsible for guarding and controlling the borders and boundaries of the U.S. against the entry of illegal aliens, whereby there are laws that indicate persons who are admissible into the country as well as policies to remove illegal immigrants ( Lasch et al., 2018) . Given that the federal government has power over the states, denying states funding for their involvement with the undocumented immigrants would largely cripple their operations. However, the question that emerges from the recommendation to eliminate funding to the sanctuary cities is whether the move is legal or not given the circumstances under which the sanctuary cities choose to protect the interests of the undocumented immigrants.
Is Denying Federal Funding to Sanctuary Cities Legal?
Examining whether the idea of denying funding to sanctuary cities is legal requires an examination of the advantages and disadvantages of the cities, especially to the local communities and the U.S. as a whole. One of the critical demerits of the sanctuary cities is that they harbor criminals, thus creating an insecure environment for the American people. Lopez-Sanchez is a crucial example of how sanctuary cities can harbor criminals; despite being deported from the country five times, the city of San Francisco refused to detain him on behalf of the ICE and went ahead to release him to the community. Another demerit associated with the cities is that their policies contradict the federal laws yet the federal laws bind local and state governments. One of the most notable example is the 8 U.S. Code § 1373, which maintains that a local, state or Federal official or entity cannot restrict or prohibit a government official or entity from receiving or sending information relating to the immigration status or citizenship of a person to the naturalization or immigration service ( Villazor & Gulasekaram, 2018) .
On the other hand, one of the significant advantages of sanctuary cities is that they are safer compared to other regions since they promote good relationships between law enforcement and undocumented immigrants. In regions where law enforcement is highly concerned about the immigration status of an individual, undocumented immigrant is less likely to report cases where they are victims of crime, or they fear giving information to the police regarding a crime for fear of being asked about their immigration status, which may further lead to their detention and deportation. In such scenarios, the general public suffers since crime thrives in areas where people are less likely to report.
Another advantage of the sanctuary cities that supports their need to acquire funding from the federal government is that they are vital in protecting the undocumented immigrants against the unfavorable federal immigration laws. Bhatt (2016) n otes that several parties consider the deportation policies by the federal immigration authorities unfair because they tend to focus on the undocumented immigrants indiscriminately, deport individuals who have no history of committing crime, individuals who have resided in the U.S. since their childhood, cause undocumented immigrants, including refugees to live in constant fear of getting deported, and separating families. From this perspective, the idea of denying the cities funding would be primarily seen as using the country's resources in promoting unjust immigration laws, since forcing states to give information about the undocumented immigrants would expose the persons to the adverse outcomes outlined above.
Another advantage that supports the need to fund sanctuary cities is that the policies that the sanctuaries implement are protected under the 10 th Amendment, indicating that they are legal. According to the Amendment, state and federal powers can be separated; moreover, the Amendment prohibits the federal government from coercing local or state government using their resources in enforcing such federal programs as immigration ( Armacost, 2016) . Hence, the federal government cannot force local or state governments to gather information about a person's immigration status. Therefore, since sanctuary cities do not collect such information following their ‘don't ask, don't tell' policies, they cannot be said to violate the federal law, which indicates that their provisions that seek to protect immigrants cannot be used as a basis for denying them funding.
From this perspective, it is illegal to deny sanctuary cities federal funding because, although they harbor illegal immigrants and reject the rule of law, the Tenth Amendment allows them to act independently of the federal government. Moreover, the Amendment forbids the federal government from using their resources to force states into complying with their demands, which indicates that the withdrawal of funding to the sanctuary cities violates the requirements of the Tenth Amendment ( Armacost, 2016) . However, to resolve the issues of security concerns that emanate from undocumented immigrants, it is vital for the federal government to implement programs that focus on cooperating with the states and the sanctuary cities in fighting crime since one's race or immigrant status do not determine crime. Focusing on crime rather than the immigrant statuses of people living within the sanctuary cities would play a crucial role in the protection of the undocumented immigrants, who include refugees, as well as minimizing potential security threats in the country.
Following President Trump’s executive order to stop funding to states that have sanctuary policies, several entities have sued the President to defend their need to continue accessing federal funding. The first entity to sue the President was San Francisco in January 2017. Others that soon followed include Santa Clara among other local governments ( Bier, 2018) . On 20 th November 2017, Judge William Orrick in Francisco established that the President’s order violated the Constitution, and in response, he issued an order prohibiting the enforcement of the President’s order by the federal government ( Herrera, 2019) . The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal further upheld the judge's decision on the 1 st of August 2018 ( Herrera, 2019) .
The second lawsuit following the President Trump’s order was filed on the 11 th of August 2017, seeking to oppose the separate grant conditions that the U.S. Attorney General at the time, Jefferson B., intended to place on a number of U.S. Department of Justice grants aimed for local law enforcement in 2017 ( Bier, 2018) . In response, judge Orrick established that San Francisco was in compliance with the federal law, the grant conditions were unconstitutional, and that the Trump administration was basing their arguments on section 1373, which is unconstitutional in itself in the context of the decisions that states opt to take, particularly in relation to protecting their citizens. The third case relating to the President’s order focused on the revised grant conditions that the Department of Justice intended to impose, specifically the 2018 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants ( Herrera, 2019) .
The arguments presented in the court cases and decisions indicated that under the system of government in America, Congress is responsible for determining how federal resources are utilized. On the other hand cities and states are responsible for determining how they intend to use their resources. Hence, the President’s executive order undermines these fundamental principles through an attempt to coerce states and cities into helping the federal immigration agents to carry out arrests of the illegal immigrants in the country. According to Bier (2018) , the coercion strips Congress their authority to decide on spending, undermines the concept of federalism, which maintains that locally elected officials are responsible for determining local policies and not the bureaucrats in Washington. The same principle was applied in 2012 in resolving the Obamacare case, the NFIB versus Sebelius, where the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to take away Medicaid funding from states that failed to expand Medicaid coverage ( Bier, 2018) . Conclusively, these cases and court decisions indicate that the U.S. federal government has no legal or constitutional authority to deny sanctuary cities federal funding on the grounds of harboring illegal immigrants since such a decision would violate the Tenth and Fifth Amendments as well as the doctrine of separation of powers.
References
Armacost, B. E. (2016). Sanctuary Laws: The New Immigration Federalism. Mich. St. L. Rev. , 1197.
Bhatt, R. (2016). Pushing an End to Sanctuary Cities: Will it Happen. Mich. J. Race & L. , 22 , 139.
Bier, D. (2018). Should Sanctuary Cities Receive Federal Funding?. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/should-sanctuary-cities-receive-federal-funding
Brady, K. (2017). Sanctuary Cities and the Demise of the Secure Communities Program. Tex. Hisp. JL & Pol'y , 23 , 21.
Herrera, D. (2019). Herrera defeats another Trump administration attempt to deny funds to sanctuary cities. Retrieved from https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2019/03/04/herrera-defeats-another-trump-administration-attempt-to-deny-funds-to-sanctuary-cities/
Lasch, C. N., Chan, R. L., Eagly, I. V., Haynes, D. F., Lai, A., McCormick, E. M., & Stumpf, J. P. (2018). Understanding Sanctuary Cities. BCL Rev. , 59 , 1703.
Martínez, D. E., Martínez ‐ Schuldt, R. D., & Cantor, G. (2018). Providing Sanctuary or Fostering Crime? A Review of the Research on “Sanctuary Cities” and Crime. Sociology Compass , 12 (1), e12547.
Rice, J. M. (2017). Looking Past the Libel: An Analysis of the Measures Underlying Sanctuary Cities. U. Mem. L. Rev. , 48 , 83.
Starr, B. (2017). Executive Power over Immigration. Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. , 22 , 283.
Villazor, R. C., & Gulasekaram, P. (2018). The New Sanctuary and Anti-Sanctuary Movements. UCDL Rev. , 52 , 549.
