In recent years, transformations in the fields of immigration and criminal law and the growing linkages between these two systems have given rise to a cogent and vital body of literature. In this article, we discern two broad strands of critique in the “crimmigration” literature. “Delineating” critiques seek to disrupt the association between immigration and crime control in the hopes of trying to reverse some of the distorting, dignity-stripping effects of migrant criminalization. “Synthesizing” critiques, on the other hand, expand their gaze to probe some of the parallel logics, cultural and environmental factors that may be driving practices in both systems. With this typology in mind, we examine resistance to the Trump Administration’s attempts to withdraw funds from so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions. We observe the limited extent to which delineation and synthesis critiques have appeared in litigation challenging the Administration’s actions and sketch out what more robust crimmigration resistance would look like. Additionally, we expand the framework by considering how delineation and synthesis critiques–and a spectrum of intermediate positions–might be understood as responses to a logical syllogism about crimmigration. In concluding, we suggest that our framework might be productively applied to other contested issues at the intersection of immigration and criminal law.

KJ