Immigration in the U.S.
DACA and DAPA
Admission of refugees
Birthright citizenship

This Ballotpedia article is in need of updates. Please email us if you would like to suggest a revision. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

In general, the term sanctuary jurisdiction refers to a city, county, or state that has enacted policies that limit local officials' involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law. While a jurisdiction may self-identify or be described by others as a sanctuary jurisdiction, the specific policies that prompt the designation are disputed, and there is no official definition of the term in federal law. Examples of sanctuary policies include policies that bar local law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status or arresting individuals who violate federal immigration law.

See also:

Sanctuary jurisdictions

Federal policy on sanctuary jurisdictions, 2017-2018

Sanctuary policy preemption conflicts between the federal and local governments

Support and opposition[edit]

Support[edit]

The American Immigration Council, which supports sanctuary policies, says that such policies improve public safety, maintain local control over local law enforcement resources, and protect law enforcement officers and agencies from liability:^[1][2]

The organization argues that such policies improve public safety because they "encourage all members of the community, including immigrants, to work with the police to prevent and solve crime."

Referring to federal court rulings that "states and localities that honor ICE detainers ... may be held liable for Fourth Amendment violations," such as Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, Oregon, the American Immigration Council also says that "many communities limit their involvement in immigration enforcement because the legality of detainers is in question."^[1][4]

Twenty-four members of the Law Enforcement Immigration Task Force wrote a letter to Congress supporting sanctuary policies in July 2015, after an individual residing in the U.S. without legal permission was charged with fatally shooting a San Francisco resident. The letter said:^[5]

The letter also said withholding funding from cities and counties with such policies "would threaten crucial federal law enforcement funding and undermine basic community policing principles."^[5]

Opposition[edit]

The Center for Immigration Studies, which opposes sanctuary policies, says they endanger public safety and obstruct enforcement of immigration law:^[6]

The Center for Immigration Studies argues that sanctuary policies encourage ICE to make arrests in the community rather than at jails and that this endangers public safety and "creates this climate of fear that the immigrant advocates say that they are opposed to." The center also argues that sanctuary policies violate federal laws prohibiting the enactment of a policy that "in any way restricts local officials from communicating or exchange information with the feds."^[6]

In January 2017, the National Fraternal Order of Police issued a statement supporting a January 25 executive order by President Donald Trump (R) disqualifying sanctuary jurisdictions from federal funding. The group argued in the statement that law enforcement cooperation between all levels of government makes communities safer. "[W]e do need to encourage cooperation between all levels of law enforcement to ensure that arbitrary policies do not put a dangerous person back on the streets," the statement said.^[7]

State policy[edit]

Arkansas[edit]

On April 18, 2019, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) signed Senate Bill (SB) 411. The bill amended Arkansas Code Title 14, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, to include a provision prohibiting a municipality from adopting sanctuary policies. It also established that municipalities determined to be in violation of the law would be ineligible to receive state funds or grants until the policy was repealed. SB 411 defined a sanctuary policy as "an order, ordinance, or law enforcement policy, whether formally enacted or informally adopted by custom or practice" limiting or prohibiting municipal officials from cooperating with federal agencies to verify immigration status or from complying with federal detainer requests. The legislation was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2020.^[8]

Hutchinson said he opposed sanctuary cities. He also said he did not "see any change in policy going forward that would be disruptive to our society." Arkansas had no sanctuary cities as defined by the bill at the time of its passage.^[9]

Supporters of the bill said it was meant to prevent cities in Arkansas from adopting sanctuary policies. Sen. Gary Stubblefield (R) said, "This is more a proactive measure to ward off something, some city in Arkansas saying, 'hey, we’re going to set ourselves up as a sanctuary city.'"^[10]

Opponents said the bill would damage the relationship between local law enforcement and the immigrant community.^[9]

California[edit]

See also: Immigration in California

On October 5, 2017, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed Senate Bill (SB) 54 into law, saying, "These are uncertain times for undocumented citizens and their families, and this bill strikes a balance that will protect public safety, while bringing a measure of comfort to those families who are now living in fear every day." The law went into effect on January 1, 2018.^[11][12] On April 3, the California State Senate passed SB 54 on a party-line vote, with 27 Democrats voting in favor and 12 Republicans voting against. On September 15, the California State Assembly passed SB 54 with amendments, by a 50-26 vote. The state Senate agreed to the Assembly's changes on September 16 and sent the bill to Brown for his signature.

SB 54 as introduced included the following provisions:^[13][14][15]

• Prohibiting California law enforcement agencies from using state and local resources to report, arrest, investigate, or detain individuals for federal law enforcement purposes.
• Limiting coordination between county jails and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
• Allowing local agencies to notify ICE of the release dates for violent felons and to alert federal officials to previously deported individuals with criminal backgrounds.

As passed, SB 54 established the following provisions:^[16][17][18]

• Exempting state prisons from provisions prohibiting state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
• Permitting law enforcement officials to notify ICE of the release of certain individuals and share database information with immigration agents.
• Allowing federal immigration agents to interview jailed individuals suspected of violating federal immigration law.

Supporters of the bill, such as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, argued SB 54 would improve relations between law enforcement and immigrant communities and offer immigrants protections at a time when the White House indicated it intended to pursue stricter immigration policies. According to Beck, the number of police reports of rape and spousal abuse declined in 2017. He said, "While there is no direct evidence that the decline is related to concerns within the Hispanic community regarding immigration, the department believes deportation fears may be preventing Hispanic members of the community from reporting when they are victimized."^[19]

Opponents of the legislation, such as the California State Sheriffs' Association (CSSA), said immigration policy should be set by the federal government and sanctuary policies could lead to an increase in violent crimes. On September 12, the CSSA released a statement opposing the bill: "Our overarching concern remains that limiting local law enforcement's ability to communicate and cooperate with federal law enforcement officers endangers public safety."^[20]

On March 27, 2018, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to join a Trump administration lawsuit against California's sanctuary state law. Click here for more information.

Florida[edit]

See also: Immigration in Florida

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed SB 168 into law on June 14, 2019. The law requires local law-enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Jails must also comply with ICE hold requests for illegal immigrants that are subject to deportation. The legislation was scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2019.^[21]

On July 16, 2019, the city of South Miami and the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against DeSantis, arguing that SB 168 would decrease trust in law enforcement and cause racial profiling.^[22]

Illinois[edit]

See also: Immigration in Illinois

Gov. Bruce Rauner (R) signed SB 31, the Illinois Trust Act, into law on August 28, 2017. SB 31 prohibits law enforcement officers from holding individuals in custody based solely on detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Under the new law, individuals held in custody are to be released as soon as they are eligible, regardless of their immigration status.^[23]

The law also prohibits law enforcement agencies from doing any of the following:^[23]

1. Providing federal immigration agents with access to individuals in custody.
2. Transferring individuals to the custody of federal immigration agents.
3. Allowing federal immigration agents to access jails or electronic databases.
4. Providing federal immigration agents with contact information for or information about the incarceration or release of any individual.

The law also says federal immigration agents may not arrest individuals for immigration violations on state property.^[23]

Supporters of the law, such as Illinois State Police Director Leo Schmitz, said it would improve public safety and "[reinforce] local, county, state ability to work with the federal government and our federal partners to protect the neighborhood." Schmitz also said the law would enable individuals living in the country without legal permission to report crimes and cooperate with law enforcement without fear of immigration consequences.

Opponents of the law, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said it would have a negative effect on public safety, making it more difficult for federal immigration agents to deport immigrants who had committed crimes.^[24][25]

Mississippi[edit]

Gov. Phil Bryant (R) signed SB 2710, a bill prohibiting local sanctuary policies, into law on March 27, 2017. The Mississippi State Senate passed SB 2710 by a vote of 32-16 on February 9. The state House passed an amended version of the bill by a vote of 76-41 on March 7 and the Senate approved the amended version 39-11 on March 21.^[26]

SB 2710 bars state agencies, cities, counties, and state educational institutions from enacting policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration status verification efforts. Under the law, localities cannot prohibit employees or officers from asking about an individual's immigration status. The law also prohibits localities from granting individuals who are residing in the country without legal permission the right to legal status, e.g. by issuing them ID cards.^[26]

The law went into effect on July 1, 2017. According to the Clarion-Ledger, one city in the state, Jackson, had a policy prohibiting law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status solely for immigration enforcement purposes when the bill went into effect.^[27]

New York[edit]

On September 15, 2017, Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed an executive order prohibiting state employees, including law enforcement officers, from asking state residents about their immigration status. The order made exceptions in two cases: (1) when determining eligibility for a public program such as Medicaid and (2) when investigating criminal activity.^[28]

Cuomo's executive order also prohibited the state from using law enforcement resources for the sole purpose of enforcing federal civil immigration law. In a statement about the order, he said, "As Washington squabbles over rolling back sensible immigration policy, we are taking action to help protect all New Yorkers from unwarranted targeting by government."^[28]

North Carolina[edit]

On August 21, 2019, Gov. Roy Cooper (D) vetoed House Bill 370, which would have required local law enforcement to investigate prisoners' immigration status and cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Cooper said that the legislation was "simply about scoring partisan political points and using fear to divide North Carolina." State Sen. Chuck Edwards (R) criticized the veto, saying that legislation was needed after Mecklenberg County ignored a detainer request in June 2019 on a man in custody on rape and child sex offense charges.^[29]

Tennessee[edit]

See also: 2018 Tennessee legislative session

Gov. Bill Haslam (R) allowed a bill involving sanctuary cities to become law without his signature. The legislation, House Bill (HB) 2315, established requirements for local law enforcement to comply with detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Under the bill, failure to comply would result in the withholding of economic and community grants. The legislation took effect on January 1, 2019.

Sanctuary cities were prohibited in Tennessee at the time of the bill's passage. Gov. Haslam said he would not sign the bill because he did not believe Tennessee had any sanctuary city-related issues and the bill was "a solution looking for a problem."

House Speaker Beth Harwell (R) said the measure would "further allow our local, state, and federal officials to work together to keep our communities safe, building on the law we passed in 2009 to outlaw sanctuary city policies."

Christian Patiño, director of operations for La Paz Chattanooga, said the legislation would distract law enforcement from carrying out their regular duties. "The priority for officers should be policing communities, and I think this can break the trust and relationships that people have with their police force."^[30] La Paz Chattanooga described itself as providing an environment for "area Latinos to come together in order to build community, develop leaders, and be a positive contribution to the growth and development of the Chattanooga region."^[31]

Texas[edit]

See also: Immigration in Texas

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed SB 4 into law on May 7, 2017. As enacted, SB 4 prohibited municipalities and campus police departments from preventing or limiting the enforcement of federal immigration law. It required police chiefs and sheriffs to comply with federal requests to hold criminal suspects for possible deportation. It also allowed law enforcement officers to ask whether someone is residing in the United States legally and exchange that information with the federal government. The bill also provided for a grant program to offset the costs to localities of immigration enforcement and prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, language, or national origin.^[32]

SB 4 was originally scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2017, but the city of El Cenizo and Maverick County filed a federal lawsuit challenging it on May 8, 2017. The suit argued SB 4 violated the Tenth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Articles I and IV. The following cities and counties in Texas subsequently joined the lawsuit:^{[33][34][35][36]}

Judge Orlando Garcia, a Clinton appointee, of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the law on August 30, 2017, preventing it from going into effect on September 1. Implementation of the law was put on hold while the case was considered by the courts.^[37]

Texas appealed the preliminary injunction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and a three-judge panel of the court heard oral arguments on November 7, 2017.^[38] The Fifth Circuit permitted most of the law to go into effect, although it held off on certain penalties for elected officials. Austin immigration attorney Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch explained that under the Fifth Circuit's ruling, "Publicly elected officials were prohibited from endorsing policies that limited the enforcement of immigration laws which could have potentially resulted in fines or jail time for elected officials."^[39]

Washington[edit]

See also: Immigration in Washington

Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed SB 5497 into law on May 21, 2019. The bill declared Washington a sanctuary state and prevents state and local authorities from questioning individuals about their immigration status except if the issue is directly tied to a criminal investigation. It also prevents local jails and state prisons from complying with voluntary federal immigration holds or notifying federal officials about the release of an immigrant from custody.^[40]

Noteworthy events[edit]

Tucson sanctuary city initiative qualifies for November 2019 ballot[edit]

See also: Tucson, Arizona, Proposition 205, Sanctuary City Initiative (November 2019)

On July 15, 2019, the Pima County Recorder certified that enough signatures submitted for the Tucson sanctuary city initiative were valid to qualify it for the ballot. This sent the initiative to the city council. On August 6, 2019, the city council voted to put the initiative on the November 2019 ballot. If the mayor and city council had approved the measure, it would have become law without an election.^[41][42]

On July 19, 2019, Tucson city voters with assistance from the Pima County Republican Party filed this lawsuit in Pima Superior Court challenging the sufficiency of the signature petition submitted by proponents of the initiative. On August 16, 2019, Pima County Superior Court Judge Douglas Metcalf ruled against plaintiffs, keeping the initiative on the ballot.^[43]

The initiative was designed to include in city code a declaration of the city's sanctuary status and to add a new section that includes provisions restricting law enforcement officers from actions to determine a person's immigration status under certain conditions; prohibiting officers from contacting federal law enforcement agencies to determine a person's immigration status; and prohibiting city employees from inquiring about a person's immigration status, among other policies.

Tucson would be the first sanctuary city in Arizona.

Birmingham mayor declares welcoming city[edit]

In August 2018, Birmingham Mayor Randall Woodfin said becoming a sanctuary jurisdiction did not go far enough. Instead, he said he wanted Birmingham to be a welcoming city. Woodfin explained,^[44]

Orange, San Diego counties join suit against California sanctuary state legislation[edit]

June 15, 2020: The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case.^[45]

April 18, 2019: Judges Milan Smith, Paul Watford, and Andrew Hurwitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that SB 54, California's sanctuary state law, did not conflict with federal law. Smith was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush (R). Watford and Hurwitz were appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

Writing for the panel, Smith wrote that SB 54 "makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult" but "does not directly conflict with any obligation" that federal law imposes on state or local governments. Smith also wrote against a provision in AB 103. "Only those provisions that impose an additional economic burden exclusively on the federal government are invalid," he said.^[46]

The decision upheld U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Judge John Mendez's July 2018 decision.^[47] Click here to read the ruling.

July 9, 2018: Judge John Mendez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California approved in part and dismissed in part California's motion to dismiss a lawsuit the Trump administration brought in March 2018. In his opinion, Mendez, appointed by George W. Bush (R), wrote, "The Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders." The judge granted California's motion to dismiss the lawsuit against SB 54 and Assembly Bill (AB) 103, and AB 450. AB 103 established restrictions on state and local agencies, preventing them from contracting with the federal government to detain immigrants. AB 450 included a provision requiring employers to notify employees about immigration inspections.^[48]

However, Mendez let stand part of AB 450. The federal government argued against a provision in the law prohibiting employers from allowing federal officers to enter a workplace without a warrant. The law also placed limits on employers' ability to re-verify the immigration status of current employees unless required by the federal government. Mendez said the government had a plausible claim against these provisions and denied California's motion to dismiss.^[48]

July 5, 2018: Mendez ruled against the U.S. Department of Justice's request to block SB 54. Mendez wrote it was up to the state whether it would assist in enforcing the federal government's immigration policies.^[49] He also said the immigration issue should be settled through legislation, not through the court system.^[50]

In addition to ruling on SB 54, Mendez also issued an injunction barring California from fining employers who allow immigration officials to access their workplace or employment records.^[50]

May 9, 2018: The Santa Clarita City Council unanimously voted to file a brief supporting the lawsuit. Santa Clarita became the first city in Los Angeles County to officially oppose California's sanctuary city law, according to the Los Angeles Times.^[51] The Corona City Council also approved a motion condemning Senate Bill (SB) 54.^[52]

Some cities, however, supported the state. Santa Ana and Palm Springs, California, for example, signed onto a brief the American Civil Liberties Union planned to submit in support of California.^[52][53]

April 17, 2018: The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to join the legal challenge against California's sanctuary state law. The board voted 3-1 and directed the county counsel to file an amicus brief. Supervisor Greg Cox, who voted against joining the lawsuit, said the county's decision was unnecessary, as the issue would be addressed in federal court.^[54] Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Kristin Gaspar said the vote was about public safety and preventing criminals from entering the county.^[55]

President Donald Trump (R) thanked San Diego County in a tweet.

Four other counties in California—Tehama, Kern, Siskiyou, and Shasta—had passed non-sanctuary resolutions at the time of San Diego County's vote.^[54]

March 27, 2018: The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to join a Trump administration lawsuit against California's sanctuary state law. The board announced its unanimous decision after a closed-door session. The vote came after the city of Los Alamitos, which is in Orange County, adopted an ordinance exempting itself from the state law. Supervisor Michelle Steel said in a statement that "[w]e cannot let the state begin cherry-picking which federal laws it decides to follow. As supervisors of this county, we all took oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true faith and allegiance to it against all enemies."^[56]

The Hesperia City Council, in San Bernardino County, also voted 3-1 in March to join an amicus brief with the lawsuit.^[57]

Judge blocks enforcement of California sanctuary law in state's charter cities[edit]

On September 27, 2018, Orange County Superior Court Judge James Crandall, appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown (D), ruled against California's sanctuary state law, SB 54. Crandall argued the law was "an unconstitutional invasion into the rights of the city." He also said "the operation of a police department and its jail is a city affair. For the state to say one size fits all for policing isn’t going to fit everybody."^[58]

Crandall's ruling blocked the state from enforcing SB 54 in the state's charter cities.^[58] According to the League of California Cities, a charter city has the authority to enact legislation that differs from state-adopted laws. According to the league, California had 482 incorporated cities as of July 1, 2011, of which 121 were charter cities.^[59]

The decision came in a case brought by Huntington Beach, a charter city, against the state of California. Other charter cities statewide include Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.^[58][60]

Los Angeles reaffirms sanctuary jurisdiction policies[edit]

On February 8, 2019, the city council in Los Angeles unanimously passed a resolution reaffirming the city's commitment not to use local resources to enforce federal immigration law.^[61] The resolution said:

In the 1970s, Los Angeles law enforcement began following Special Order 40, which prohibited officers from detaining individuals solely to determine their immigration status.^[61]

A Los Angeles resident writing to the editor of the Los Angeles Times expressed his opposition to the resolution. "I am very opposed to Los Angeles designating itself a sanctuary city. I expect my elected officials to uphold the law, not subvert it," he wrote.^[62]

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, said the resolution could negatively impact city residents and neighboring communities that support federal immigration policies.^[63]

Atlanta ends cooperation with ICE[edit]

On September 6, 2018, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Bottoms signed an executive order directing the chief of the city Department of Corrections to stop accepting immigration and customs enforcement detainees. The order also instructed the corrections chief to formally request that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) transfer detainees out of Atlanta as soon as possible.^[64]

In a press release, Bottoms attributed the order to opposition to the separation of children from parents crossing the border illegally. She said, "As we work to achieve our vision of an Atlanta that is welcoming and inclusive, with equal opportunity for all, it is untenable for our City to be complicit in the inhumane immigration policies that have led to the separation of hundreds of families at the United States southern border."^[64] Click here for more information.

Opponents of Bottoms' order said cooperating with ICE was a matter of public safety. They argued that noncooperation put officers and communities at risk.^[65][66]

Oregon initiative to repeal sanctuary law defeated on November 2018 ballot[edit]

See also: Oregon Measure 105, Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative (2018)

On July 17, 2018, the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division reported that enough of the 105,000 signatures submitted for a citizen initiative to repeal the state’s sanctuary state law were found to be valid to qualify the repeal initiative for the November 2018 ballot; 88,184 valid signatures were required.

Oregon Representatives Sal Esquivel (R-6), Mike Nearman (R-23), and Greg Barreto (R-58) were the chief sponsors of the initiative. Oregonians for Immigration Reform led the campaign in support of the measure. Rep. Esquivel (R-6) said, "It's time that Oregon complies with federal law like it should have in the first place. If you want to become an American become an American. If you want to come here for economic advantages and do it illegally then I don't think you should belong here."^[67]

Oregonians United Against Profiling, the group opposing the initiative, argued, "Today’s immigrants join the long American tradition of coming here in search of a better life and the freedom and opportunity Oregon and our nation offers. No Oregonian, including immigrant Oregonians, should live in fear that doing everyday things like going to work, going to school or reporting crimes to the police could result in harassment or families being torn apart."^[68]

The measure was defeated.

Immigration measures on the ballot in 2018
State	Measures
Oregon	Oregon Measure 105: Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative d

Department of Justice request for documents from Oregon[edit]

On January 24, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sent a letter to the Oregon state government requesting documents detailing the state's policies on compliance with federal immigration officials. The letter stated that if the documents were not submitted by February 24, then the federal government would issue a subpoena to access them and would seek the return of $4 million it had granted to the state for other law enforcement initiatives in 2016 and 2017. In a statement issued to The Oregonian, Gov. Kate Brown (D) stated her intention to "continue to do everything in my power to ensure that the rights and values of all Oregonians are protected."^[69]

New York appeals court blocks state and local law enforcement from detaining immigrants[edit]

On November 14, 2018, the appellate division of the second judicial department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled it was illegal for state and local law enforcement to arrest immigrants at the request of federal immigration officials. The ruling went into effect statewide.^[70] Click here to read the decision.

The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) brought the case in December 2017 on behalf of Susai Francis, who entered the US from India with a visitor's visa in 1996 and never left. After pleading guilty in 2017 to disorderly misconduct charges and being sentenced to time served, Francis was detained by the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office as part of a detainer request from ICE. He was later moved to a detention facility.^[70][71]

Austin City Council adopts freedom city policies[edit]

On June 14, 2018, Austin became the first city in Texas to adopt freedom city policies. Freedom city policies are aimed at decreasing arrests and decriminalizing minor offenses. The city council unanimously adopted a pair of resolutions directing city police to collect data on when, where, and why an arrest is made. They also instructed police to inform individuals of their right to remain silent before asking about the individual's immigration status.^[72][73]

Several other cities also adopted freedom city policies, including Madison, Wisconsin; Portland, Oregon; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Albany, California; and Silver City, New Mexico, among others.^[72]

Supporters of Austin's resolutions said the policies would help create a bond between police and communities. City Councilmember Gregorio Casar argued the policies would decrease discriminatory arrests and prevent undocumented immigrants from deportation.^[73]

Opponents, such as state Attorney General Ken Paxton (R), said the policy showed "disrespect for the rule of law." Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said it would endanger residents.^[74]

Virginia governor vetoes law prohibiting sanctuary jurisdictions (2019)[edit]

On March 19, 2019, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) vetoed Senate Bill 1156, which would have prohibited sanctuary cities. A bill summary described the legislation as providing "that no locality shall adopt any ordinance, procedure, or policy intended to restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws."^[75]

Northam said the bill "imposes an unnecessary and divisive requirement upon localities regarding the enforcement of federal immigration laws."^[76]

Bill sponsor Sen. Dick Black (R-District 13) disagreed, saying Northam mischaracterized the bill. "It just says localities must not adopt policies that interfere with federal enforcement. I think he was struggling to put words down, while encouraging sanctuary cities to pop up in Virginia," he said.^[77]

Northam vetoed a similar measure in 2018. Click here for more information.

Virginia governor vetoes law outlawing sanctuary jurisdictions (2018)[edit]

See also: 2018 Virginia legislative session

On April 9, 2018, Gov. Ralph Northam (D) vetoed House Bill 1257, which would have prohibited sanctuary cities. The bill's only sentence read: "No locality shall adopt any ordinance, procedure, or policy that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws." Northam said in his veto explanation that the legislation would have forced "local law enforcement agencies to use precious resources to perform functions that are the responsibility of federal immigration enforcement agencies." He also said, "Localities have the right to determine whether to expend the resources and voluntarily enter into an agreement with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency."^[78][79]

Bill sponsor Del. Ben Cline (R-District 24) said the bill was intended to keep localities from interfering with federal immigration activities. "Ensuring that Virginia localities abide by federal immigration laws is a matter of public safety and upholding the rule of law. Governor Northam’s veto of my bill to ban sanctuary cities in Virginia is indefensible."^[80]

Washington becomes sanctuary state[edit]

See also: Immigration in Washington

Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed SB 5497 into law on May 21, 2019. The bill declared Washington a sanctuary state and prevents state and local authorities from questioning individuals about their immigration status except if the issue is directly tied to a criminal investigation. It also prevents local jails and state prisons from complying with voluntary federal immigration holds or notifying federal officials about the release of an immigrant from custody.^[40]

After signing the legislation, Inslee said, "We will not be complicit in the Trump administration's depraved efforts to break up hard-working immigrant and refugee families."^[40]

Recent legislation[edit]

The following is a list of recent sanctuary policy bills that have been introduced in or passed by state legislatures around the country. To learn more about each of these bills, click the bill title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.

Note: Due to the nature of the sorting process used to generate this list, some results may not be relevant to the topic. If no bills are displayed below, then no legislation pertaining to this topic has been introduced in a state legislature recently.

See also[edit]

• 

  Immigration in the U.S.

• 

  Immigration policy under the Trump administration

• 

  115th Congress on immigration

Footnotes[edit]