:On “Sanctuary” Laws and Local Policing Policies

xControversy continues about so-called local “sanctuary” laws (L.A. Times and Time recently ran stories) and how they have facilitated horrible crimes by immigrants.  The terminology desrves commentary.  In the 1980s, while civil wars raged in Central America, a number of cities declared themselves to be “sanctuary cities” and offered sanctuary to refugees from that troubled region of the world.

Today’s controversy over “sanctuary” laws does not focus on the 1980s-style “sanctuary” laws but on local police department — such as the Los Angeles Police Department’s policy — to limit inquiry into the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, and suspects.  These policies, which are often adopted by cities with large immigrant communities, are designed to allow for better policing and law enforcement by encouraging immigrant communities to report crime without fear of being deported.  This is why LAPD Chief William Bratton supports such policies.  To call these law enforcment policies “sanctuary laws” seems to minimize their legitimate and important law enforcement function.

For excellent commentary on the topic of sanctuary cites, see Dan Kowalski’s analysis on the Huffington Post.

Note that these “sanctuary” laws differ from laws and policies that require state and local governments to report on inmates amd prisoners convicted of crimes.  Virginia, for example, recently implemented a law that requires jail officials are now required to notify federal authorities of all foreign-born inmates regardless of their immigration status.  This policy creates a number of problems but the reporting of a convicted criminal to the immigration authorities does not pose the same threat to effective policing as asking about immigration status in the investigation of crimes.

KJ