At 10 p.m. on June 27, 1980, Jose Artiga received word that El Salvador’s death squads were hunting him. The then-23-year-old engineering student had been involved in political protests — and for that, he and his friends had a target on their backs. “They had already found the other four and cut them into pieces,” recalls Artiga, who had been a supporter of left-wing groups as the Salvadoran civil war broke out. The young man dropped everything, said goodbye to his home and by 5 p.m. the next day had arrived across the border in Guatemala. But he faced persecution there, too, and finding a place to call home in Mexico, his next stop, proved nearly as difficult. So he continued to the U.S., first landing in Austin, Texas, before settling in California in 1982. It was there that Artiga would end up in one of the world’s first sanctuary cities. Jose Artiga speaking with a bishop in California in 1987. Courtesy of Jose Artiga In 1971, Berkeley, California, declared itself a “refuge city” for conscientious objectors to the Vietnam War. Then in the 1980s, following the lead of local churches, the city extended the remit of sanctuary in response to the exodus of thousands of refugees like Artiga fleeing violence across Central America. Ronald Reagan’s administration refused to recognize Salvadoran refugees and thus considered them illegal migrants. But Berkeley’s resolution, refusing to criminalize those seeking a better life in the face of suffering, stated that no employee should “violate the established sanctuaries by … engaging in or assisting with arrests for alleged violation of immigration laws by the refugees in the sanctuaries … or by refusing established public services.” Cities such as San Francisco and Santa Fe, New Mexico, soon followed with declarations or binding ordinances — and the policy eventually spread to hundreds of jurisdictions. “It was the birth of the Sanctuary City movement,” says Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, a professor of political science at San Diego State University, referring to Berkeley’s case. Weighed down by negative news? Our smart, bright, weekly newsletter is the uplift you’ve been looking for. [contact-form-7] Today, amid mass, often violent immigration raids led by the Trump administration, sanctuary cities have come into the spotlight as a tool to protect the human rights of undocumented people, recognizing the often fundamental social and economic roles that they play in local communities. “In the U.S., the system for immigration has been broken for decades,” adds O’Brien. “We have long depended on immigrant labor, particularly from Mexico but also labor from Central America. That labor has helped to build the country today. But often immigrants are treated as scapegoats, as disposable and removable.” But sanctuary cities, at a time when national migration agendas are increasingly demanding the intervention of municipal authorities, are providing communities with a way to resist and to protect their immigrant neighbors — while simultaneously putting local priorities and needs ahead of polarizing partisan politics. Berkeley was one of the first sanctuary cities in the world. Credit: Daniel Ramirez / Flickr So what exactly is a sanctuary city? Though cities have implemented different kinds of sanctuary approaches, they largely center on two major policies: to not inquire into the immigration status of residents when they use municipal services and to limit local cooperation with, or participation in, federal immigration enforcement. And the data shows this decades-old approach helps reduce deportations of otherwise law-abiding, non-violent immigrants. A 2020 study, which analyzed ICE deportation data and FBI crime data, found that between 2010 and 2015 sanctuary policies reduced deportations of people with no criminal convictions by half. “It’s not members of MS-13 [the Los Angeles criminal gang], or drug dealers, it’s people working at local stores that are being dragged down [by hardline deportation policies],” says O’Brien. At the same time, studies suggest that sanctuary city policies have not led to spikes in crime as some critics might suggest. A 2017 study of U.S. cities from 2000 through 2014, both before and after the implementation of sanctuary policies, found no link between implementation and an increase in crime rates. “We found no relationship between sanctuary cities and crime,” says O’Brien, who was a co-author of the analysis. “In fact, the opposite: In some cases, they had lower levels of crime.” A separate analysis by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center found that sanctuary jurisdictions on average had higher median household income, less poverty, higher employment-to-population ratios and lower unemployment rates. Supporters argue that these core humanitarian protections bring a number of wider benefits. David J. Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington D.C.-based thinktank, says that sanctuary means undocumented migrants are more likely to report crimes — on average immigrants already report crimes more than U.S.-born people — and that local police can focus on their job of enforcing state and local laws.  “It’s in the interest of the state government to have you show up, not to be deported for a minor crime,” he explains. “The job of local police is to enforce state and local laws against violent and property crimes, not civil violations that have no victim.” Meanwhile, evidence shows that immigrants — documented and undocumented — make a huge contribution to the U.S. economy. Research by the Cato Institute published in March found that over the last 30 years immigrants have reduced federal, state and local government budget deficits by a combined $14.5 trillion, including $1.7 trillion from undocumented immigrants. “Removing immigrants is a big punch to budgets and the economy,” says Bier. “It’s not something that cities are rationally interested in. It’s going to be a huge problem, a death spiral of lost tax revenue, businesses will close.” Yet Bier says it’s important to note that the data on the effectiveness of sanctuary cities during the Trump administration is currently limited. They are facing more hostility than ever — in August the Department of Justice threatened to sue 35 “sanctuary jurisdictions” — and that could have an impact on their efficacy. “The empirical evidence is largely on the side of sanctuary city policies,” he says. “But it’s very different now to what it was in the past. ICE doesn’t really care who they are picking up, which makes it difficult to assess what the impact is.” O’Brien, who last year published a study of 379 municipal sanctuary policies, also warned that much research “treats sanctuary cities the same,” even though in reality, limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement can vary a lot. But to protect themselves from outside inference, cities are increasingly codifying their sanctuary policies into municipal law, as Berkeley did last year. “The City of Berkeley’s commitment to protecting immigrants is consistent with our community values and spans more than four decades,” said Mayor Adena Ishii in an emailed statement. “We want people to feel safe reporting crimes to the police, without fear of deportation. People should feel comfortable leaving their homes and going to work, school, grocery stores, or government buildings for services and information.” Other cities have also been moving their resolutions to ordinances — making them part of the city code and therefore legally enforceable. And there have been efforts in other countries, by cities such as Toronto and Vancouver, to introduce similar policies. But their effectiveness, says O’Brien, depends a lot on the national context. “In the U.S., because of the federal system, cities, counties and states have a lot more power to resist than you would get in a province in Canada,” he explains. Meanwhile, Artiga, who has since founded the humanitarian nonprofit Share El Salvador, argues that sanctuary city policies can only do so much and that the U.S. has a responsibility to improve conditions in home countries. “The flow of immigrants to the Global North is the result of policies by the U.S. government,” he says.  Bier also argues that authorities could pull on other levers to improve the reception of migrants, such as better highlighting their economic contribution through tracking tax payments, and making it easier for them to obtain documentation such as driver’s licenses and therefore contribute. He then criticized the “tepid” response from some cities, failing to sue federal authorities for unconstitutional behavior and prosecute for police killings. Wait, you're not a member yet? Join the Reasons to be Cheerful community by supporting our nonprofit publication and giving what you can. Join Cancel anytime Berkeley is one of the exceptions in launching lawsuits against the Trump administration for threatening to cut funding for sanctuary cities. “We have received threats from the federal government due to our Sanctuary City status,” said Mayor Ishii. “We made it very clear that we would not be bullied into abandoning our values and our community.” For Artiga, immigrants bring immense cultural, societal and indeed gastronomic value to the U.S., far beyond any financial indicators. “We need to embrace the immigrant,” he says. “With immigrants you can learn how to cook chicken 1,000 different ways with the same ingredients. The Chinese, Mexicans, French, Italians. It’s beautiful. They have made this country what it is today.” The post Do Sanctuary Cities Work? appeared first on Reasons to be Cheerful.