Sanctuaries

In the article “Sanctuary Cities Violate Law and Common Sense” (1-3) Robert Ehrlich writes that citizens of sanctuary cities are in danger and change is essential. First, Ehrlich accuses democrats of no longer being concerned with immigration law along with progressives being arrogant. Then the author urges citizens to not let Kate Steinle’s death be in vain. Furthermore, the author urges government to end support of sanctuary cities. The most interesting point Ehrlich presented was “it’s as though federal immigration law has been reduced to a discretionary set of suggestions” (Ehrlich 2). In conclusion, the author reveals that sanctuary cities need change by not only citizens but also government to prevent future casualties.

Hans A. Von Spakovsky, a senior legal at the Heritage Foundation and an expert on civil justice reform, legal issues, and elections. In Spakovsky article, he points out the sanctuary policy for illegal aliens. How a numerous amount of cities and town in the U.S. have thousands of illegal aliens commit crimes and get away with it. Shown in the article, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a study on approximately 250,000 illegal aliens that are locked up in federal, state, and local prisons. 49% of illegal aliens have been arrested for drugs and the next highest percent is 37% for burglary or stolen property. Many others have been arrested for other crimes such as assault, fraud, weapons, homicide, kidnapping, and sex crimes.

One of the most talked about bills is TX Senate Bill 4. SB4, often referred to as a “Sanctuary City ban,” has already been signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott. SB4 requires local law enforcement, including campus police, to comply with the requests of federal immigration

The name “sanctuary cities” comes from the 1980s protests of federal immigration policies that refused shelter to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. It all began when the Salvadoran government had inflicted martial law on all its citizens, which in effect pronounced the beginning of mass killings in the country. The movement was formed to offer protection to these undocumented refugees that were fleeing the Central American wars that plagued their homes. An estimated 18,000 to 20,000 people were killed or “disappeared” in the 1980’s alone. Thousands of Salvadorans fled the violence, coming north through Mexico to the United States. In July of 1980, two dozen or more Salvadorans who were crossing the Sonoran Desert were deserted by their

Sanctuary cities are a very serious and confusing topic. I feel like we should have some sanctuary cities not an overpowering amount but enough to let immigrants have a

Can sanctuary cities be effective in both the policing and protection of undocumented citizens and if so, how will they regulate the population in question? A main issue being displayed here is a lack of standardized regulations being set by sanctuary cities. Instead of setting a precedent of resisting government immigration policies, these efforts would better have spent towards setting up and promoting programs that assist illegal immigrants in becoming American citizens. This paper will look at articles regarding sanctuary cities from Slate, Vox and the Wall Street Journal and decide which has the strongest argument.

Sanctuary Cities first began to popup in the 1980’s, according to Congressional Digest, during a movement lead by local churches to create a sanctuary for people fleeing violence in Central America. “The logic behind sanctuary cities is that encouraging immigrants to work with police without fear of deportation helps authorities improve public safety.” (Congressional Digest pp.13) Despite the idea surrounding the creation of Sanctuary Cities they have become a threat to public safety. Sanctuary Cities have become a dangerous environment for criminals to take advantage of the good intentions of the American people. Sanctuary Cities have released criminals, placed restrictions on law enforcements, and have forced the creation of Kate’s law in order to protect American citizens from illegal immigrants.

The history of the “sanctuary city” designation is vague in its origin and definition, the word sanctuary meant something to those refugees, and to a lot of congregations all over the country who provided them with shelter. As for today, the term has become charged and in some ways toxic. With hundreds of cities considered sanctuary jurisdictions, five states and 644 counties have policies limiting local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” Perhaps these words written on Lady Liberty first inspired the creation of so called “sanctuary cities” in the United States. Sanctuary cities began in the 80’s as a network of churches and religious congregations that provided safe housing for refugees. Today, sanctuary cities have transformed from a small scale network to a larger social movement to fight xenophobia and bring the possibility of a normal life for undocumented people. Lately, the buzzword of “sanctuary cities” is on every politician's lips as Trump makes dramatic threats to cut federal funding from counties that continue this “sanctuary city” practice.

I think these cities are hazardous to protect legal citizens. For example, in San Francisco (a sanctuary city), a

The Sanctuary Model of youth residential treatment is of great interest to me, as it utilizes a similar approach to the trauma-informed care model promoted by many domestic violence and sexual assault recovery centers (including my current place of employment).

One way sanctuary cities are developing is by having safer communities. Residents need to be able to trust the police, so if a situation ever arose, the immigrant is able to go to the police (Kasai & Trumble, 2017). Another way sanctuary cities are developing is by providing government funding. The government funds some of the largest and economic cities, which

Our plan is to build sanctuaries and protect our animals from being killed. We are going to buy abandoned land and we will build buildings and put a bunch of grass and trees and pools so the animals can live in their natural habitat. Our goal is to be able take care of the animals and make sure they live a great life. When we create the sanctuaries we will keep the animals in their natural habaitat but when we move them to the new place they will get scared. To prevent that from happening we will keep them with really good comfort and have their sorrundings around them

God gave very specific instructions to Moses regarding the establishment of the earthly sanctuary. These instructions were given in order to maintain the covenant relationship with God. In Exodus 19:5-6 it is written, “’Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep my covenant, then you shall be My own possession among all the peoples, for all the earth is Mine; and you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’. Evidently, God desired for the people of Israel to be set apart, a people that functioned and behaved differently to those around them. Moreover, they were to be a ‘kingdom of priests’ that were His representatives on earth. Within this covenant relationship, God established laws and regulations, part of which is this scripture regarding the veil, a divide between the outer tabernacle and the Holy of Holies, the place where God was enthroned on earth .

Empowering local law enforcement across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer is a public relations nightmare. This allows local law enforcement in the interior of the U.S. to stop and ask individuals for their visas or other immigration papers. This practice is prone to racial profiling and may encroach on the rights of U.S. citizens. This practice leads to mistrust of local law enforcement and involves the use of limited resources to detain and subsequently remove persons with only traffic stops or minor infractions. This also requires paid training programs for local law enforcement officers across the country. The only states where this is socially acceptable are the border states, where immigration rates are high and officers are already familiar with immigration issues.