The societal impact of nanotechnology are the potential benefits and challenges that the introduction of novel nanotechnological devices and materials may hold for society and human interaction. The term is sometimes expanded to also include nanotechnology's health and environmental impact, but this article will only consider the social and political impact of nanotechnology.
As nanotechnology is an emerging field and most of its
applications are still speculative, there is much debate about what
positive and negative effects that nanotechnology might have.
Overview
Airborne nanomaterials detection equipment
Beyond the toxicity risks to human health and the environment which
are associated with first-generation nanomaterials, nanotechnology has
broader societal implications and poses broader social challenges.
Social scientists have suggested that nanotechnology's social issues
should be understood and assessed not simply as "downstream" risks or
impacts. Rather, the challenges should be factored into "upstream"
research and decision making in order to ensure technology development
that meets social objectives
Many social scientists and organizations in civil society suggest that technology assessment and governance should also involve public participation.
Though the innovative part of nano-technology may excite people a
lot of other worries about the societal and natural impact the
advancement of nano-technology will bring. Studies have shown numerous
positive results of applying nano-technology but public opinion is vital
to its success at transforming society. A number of different socio and
political factors will be crucial to deciding the destiny of
nano-technology.
Some observers suggest that nanotechnology will build incrementally, as did the 18–19th century industrial revolution,
until it gathers pace to drive a nanotechnological revolution that will
radically reshape our economies, our labor markets, international
trade, international relations, social structures, civil liberties, our
relationship with the natural world and even what we understand to be
human. Others suggest that it may be more accurate to describe change
driven by nanotechnology as a “technological tsunami”.
Just like a tsunami, analysts warn that rapid nanotechnology-driven
change will necessarily have profound disruptive impacts. As the APEC
Center for Technology Foresight observes:
If nanotechnology is going to revolutionize manufacturing, health
care, energy supply, communications and probably defense, then it will
transform labour and the workplace, the medical system, the
transportation and power infrastructures and the military. None of these
latter will be changed without significant social disruption.
Those concerned with the negative impact of nanotechnology suggest
that it will simply exacerbate problems stemming from existing
socio-economic inequity and unequal distributions of power, creating
greater inequities between rich and poor through an inevitable
nano-divide (the gap between those who control the new nanotechnologies
and those whose products, services or labour are displaced by them).
Analysts suggest the possibility that nanotechnology has the potential
to destabilize international relations through a nano arms race and the
increased potential for bioweaponry; thus, providing the tools for ubiquitous surveillance with significant implications for civil liberties. Also, many critics believe it might break down the barriers between life and non-life through nanobiotechnology, redefining even what it means to be human.
Nanotechnology has the potential to benefits all forms of work
from daily life to medicine and biology. Despite these benefits, there
are also health risks when it comes to human exposure to the nano
material. Studies have shown that dangerous nano-particles can build up
in the body after prolonged exposure. This is caused by a very
complicated interaction between nano-particles and parts of the body’s
systems.
Nanoethicists posit that such a transformative technology could
exacerbate the divisions of rich and poor – the so-called “nano divide.”
However nanotechnology makes the production of technology, e.g.
computers, cellular phones, health technology etcetera, cheaper and
therefore accessible to the poor.
In fact, many of the most enthusiastic proponents of
nanotechnology, such as transhumanists, see the nascent science as a
mechanism to changing human nature itself – going beyond curing disease
and enhancing human characteristics. Discussions on nanoethics have
been hosted by the federal government, especially in the context of
“converging technologies” – a catch-phrase used to refer to nano,
biotech, information technology, and cognitive science.
Possible military applications
Possible military applications of nanotechnology have been suggested in the fields of soldier enhancement and chemical weapons amongst others. However, more socially disruptive weapon systems are to be expected from molecular manufacturing, a potential future form of nanotechnology that would make it possible to build complex structures at atomic precision.
Molecular manufacturing requires significant advances in
nanotechnology, but its supporters posit that once achieved it could
produce highly advanced products at low costs and in large quantities in
nanofactories weighing a kilogram or more.
If nanofactories gain the ability to produce other nanofactories
production may only be limited by relatively abundant factors such as
input materials, energy and software.
Military applications for nanotechnology are going to
revolutionize modern warfare and while many benefits will come from the
applications of such technology there are also some risks that we need
to be aware of. The emergence of nanotechnology will greatly change the
fields of science medicine surveillance and energy. While human
engineering and arms control will be better there will also be strict
regulations on all forms of nanotech especially autonomies to prevent
any unfortunate incidents. All treaties will be upheld and there should
under no circumstance be an arms race. Because of its constant fast
growth countries should work together to solve the problem of hazard
nano materials and to prevent an arms race as a result of social
problems and poor communication.
Molecular manufacturing might be used to cheaply produce, among
many other products, highly advanced, durable weapons. Being equipped
with compact computers and motors these might be increasingly autonomous
and have a large range of capabilities.
According to Chris Phoenix and Mike Treder from the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology as well as Anders Sandberg from the Future of Humanity Institute the military uses of molecular manufacturing are the applications of nanotechnology that pose the most significant global catastrophic risk. Several nanotechnology researchers state that the bulk of risk from
nanotechnology comes from the potential to lead to war, arms races and
destructive global government.
Several reasons have been suggested why the availability of nanotech
weaponry may with significant likelihood lead to unstable arms races
(compared to e.g. nuclear arms races): (1) A large number of players may
be tempted to enter the race since the threshold for doing so is low; (2) the ability to make weapons with molecular manufacturing might be cheap and easy to hide;
(3) therefore lack of insight into the other parties' capabilities can
tempt players to arm out of caution or to launch preemptive strikes; (4) molecular manufacturing may reduce dependency on international trade, a potential peace-promoting factor; (5) wars of aggression
may pose a smaller economic threat to the aggressor since manufacturing
is cheap and humans may not be needed on the battlefield.
Self-regulation by all state and non-state actors has been called hard to achieve, so measures to mitigate war-related risks have mainly been proposed in the area of international cooperation.International infrastructure may be expanded giving more sovereignty to
the international level. This could help coordinate efforts for arms
control.
Some have put forth that international institutions dedicated
specifically to nanotechnology (perhaps analogously to the International
Atomic Energy Agency IAEA) or general arms control may also be designed. One may also jointly make differential technological progress on defensive technologies. The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology also suggest some technical restrictions. Improved transparency regarding technological capabilities may be another important facilitator for arms-control.
On the structural level, critics of nanotechnology point to a new world of ownership and corporate control opened up by nanotechnology. The claim is that, just as biotechnology's ability to manipulate genes went hand in hand with the patenting
of life, so too nanotechnology's ability to manipulate molecules has
led to the patenting of matter. The last few years has seen a gold rush
to claim patents at the nanoscale. Academics have warned that the
resultant patent thicket is harming progress in the technology and have argued in the top journal Nature that there should be a moratorium on patents on "building block" nanotechnologies.
Over 800 nano-related patents were granted in 2003, and the numbers are
increasing year to year. Corporations are already taking out
broad-ranging patents on nanoscale discoveries and inventions. For
example, two corporations, NEC and IBM, hold the basic patents on carbon nanotubes,
one of the current cornerstones of nanotechnology. Carbon nanotubes
have a wide range of uses, and look set to become crucial to several
industries from electronics and computers, to strengthened materials to
drug delivery and diagnostics. Carbon nanotubes are poised to become a
major traded commodity with the potential to replace major conventional
raw materials. However, as their use expands, anyone seeking to
(legally) manufacture or sell carbon nanotubes, no matter what the
application, must first buy a license from NEC or IBM.
Potential benefits and risks for developing countries
Nanotechnologies may provide new solutions for the millions of people in developing countries who lack access to basic services, such as safe water, reliable energy, health care, and education. The United Nations has set Millennium Development Goals for meeting these needs. The 2004 UN
Task Force on Science, Technology and Innovation noted that some of the
advantages of nanotechnology include production using little labor,
land, or maintenance, high productivity, low cost, and modest
requirements for materials and energy.
Many developing countries, for example Costa Rica, Chile,
Bangladesh, Thailand, and Malaysia, are investing considerable resources
in research and development of nanotechnologies. Emerging economies
such as Brazil, China, India and South Africa are spending millions of
US dollars annually on R&D, and are rapidly increasing their
scientific output as demonstrated by their increasing numbers of
publications in peer-reviewed scientific publications.
Lung on a chip
Simple triboelectric nanogenerator
Potential opportunities of nanotechnologies to help address critical international development priorities include improved water purification systems, energy systems, medicine and pharmaceuticals, food production and nutrition, and information and communications technologies.
Nanotechnologies are already incorporated in products that are on the
market. Other nanotechnologies are still in the research phase, while
others are concepts that are years or decades away from development.
Applying nanotechnologies in developing countries raises similar
questions about the environmental, health, and societal risks described
in the previous section. Additional challenges have been raised
regarding the linkages between nanotechnology and development.
Protection of the environment, human health and worker safety in
developing countries often suffers from a combination of factors that
can include but are not limited to lack of robust environmental, human
health, and worker safety regulations; poorly or unenforced regulation
which is linked to a lack of physical (e.g., equipment) and human
capacity (i.e., properly trained regulatory staff). Often, these
nations require assistance, particularly financial assistance, to
develop the scientific and institutional capacity to adequately assess
and manage risks, including the necessary infrastructure such as
laboratories and technology for detection.
Very little is known about the risks and broader impacts of
nanotechnology. At a time of great uncertainty over the impacts of
nanotechnology it will be challenging for governments, companies, civil
society organizations, and the general public in developing countries,
as in developed countries, to make decisions about the governance of
nanotechnology.
Companies, and to a lesser extent governments and universities,
are receiving patents on nanotechnology. The rapid increase in
patenting of nanotechnology is illustrated by the fact that in the US,
there were 500 nanotechnology patent applications in 1998 and 1,300 in
2000. Some patents are very broadly defined, which has raised concern
among some groups that the rush to patent could slow innovation and
drive up costs of products, thus reducing the potential for innovations
that could benefit low income populations in developing countries.
There is a clear link between commodities and poverty. Many least
developed countries are dependent on a few commodities for employment,
government revenue, and export earnings. Many applications of
nanotechnology are being developed that could impact global demand for
specific commodities. For instance, certain nanoscale materials could
enhance the strength and durability of rubber, which might eventually lead to a decrease in demand for natural rubber. Other nanotechnology applications may result in increases in demand for certain commodities. For example, demand for titanium may increase as a result of new uses for nanoscale titanium oxides, such as titanium dioxide
nanotubes that can be used to produce and store hydrogen for use as
fuel. Various organizations have called for international dialogue on
mechanisms that will allow developing countries to anticipate and
proactively adjust to these changes.
Concerns
are frequently raised that the claimed benefits of nanotechnology will
not be evenly distributed, and that any benefits (including technical
and/or economic) associated with nanotechnology will only reach affluent
nations.
The majority of nanotechnology research and development - and patents
for nanomaterials and products - is concentrated in developed countries
(including the United States, Japan, Germany, Canada and France). In
addition, most patents related to nanotechnology are concentrated
amongst few multinational corporations, including IBM, Micron
Technologies, Advanced Micro Devices and Intel.
This has led to fears that it will be unlikely that developing
countries will have access to the infrastructure, funding and human
resources required to support nanotechnology research and development,
and that this is likely to exacerbate such inequalities.
Producers in developing countries could also be disadvantaged by
the replacement of natural products (including rubber, cotton, coffee
and tea) by developments in nanotechnology. These natural products are
important export crops for developing countries, and many farmers'
livelihoods depend on them. It has been argued that their substitution
with industrial nano-products could negatively impact the economies of
developing countries, that have traditionally relied on these export
crops.
It is proposed that nanotechnology can only be effective in
alleviating poverty and aid development "when adapted to social,
cultural and local institutional contexts, and chosen and designed with
the active participation by citizens right from the commencement point"
(Invernizzi et al. 2008, p. 132).
Effects on laborers
Ray Kurzweil has speculated in The Singularity is Near that people who work in unskilled labor jobs for a livelihood may become the first human workers to be displaced by the constant use of nanotechnology in the workplace,
noting that layoffs often affect the jobs based around the lowest
technology level before attacking jobs with the highest technology level
possible.
It has been noted that every major economic era has stimulated a
global revolution both in the kinds of jobs that are available to people
and the kind of training they need to achieve these jobs, and there is
concern that the world's educational systems have lagged behind in
preparing students for the "Nanotech Age".
It has also been speculated that nanotechnology may give rise to nanofactories which may have superior capabilities to conventional factories due to their small carbon and physical footprint on the global and regional environment. The miniaturization
and transformation of the multi-acre conventional factory into the
nanofactory may not interfere with their ability to deliver a high
quality product; the product may be of even greater quality due to the
lack of human errors in the production stages. Nanofactory systems may
use precise atomic positioning and contribute to making superior quality
products that the "bulkchemistry"
method used in 20th century and early 21st currently cannot produce.
These advances might shift the computerized workforce in an even more
complex direction, requiring skills in genetics, nanotechnology, and
robotics.
Ethical ramifications of nanotechnology
The
ethics of nanotechnology are hard to discuss since the risk have not
been verified or quantified to great extent. But these discussions are
needed to deal with the rapid and development of this new technology.
Scientist must be aware of the potential risks and benefits to not just
the scientific community but society as a whole. The reason behind the
emergence of Nano-ethics is the idea of using nanotechnology on humans
and the environment to enhance or evolve. Scientist who work in nano
tech are both the most optimistic about its progress and worried for its
risks on society, though most coming into nanotechnology have no
introduction to the ethics.
The advancement of science helped focus research into
nanotechnology, soon the price of nano based material grew exponentially
and funding was being given to its research. Though claims about its
harmful affects also increased as did the concern of its effect on
society. Laws were then made to monitor nano technology and make sure
ethical, environmental and societal concerns were ingrained. Research
programs and funding were encouraged internationally.
Development is a human right that belongs to everyone, individually
and collectively. Everyone is “entitled to participate in, contribute
to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in
which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized,”
states the groundbreaking UN Declaration on the Right to Development, proclaimed in 1986.
Human rights add value to the agenda for development by drawing
attention to the accountability to respect, protect, promote and fulfil
all human rights of all people. It, in turn, contributes to the human
rights-based approach to development. A human rights based approach will
further generally lead to better analyzed and more focused strategic
interventions by providing the normative foundation for tackling
fundamental development issues.
The initial impetus of the current human rights legal regime and
movement was in reaction to the Nazi atrocities of World War II. Human
Rights are importantly referred to in the United Nations Charter
in both the Preamble and under Article 1 though only sparingly. The
preamble of the UN Charter reaffirms "faith in fundamental human rights,
in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of
men and women".
The Charter established the Economic and Social council which set up the UN Human Rights Commission now the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Chapter VI of the Charter entitled International Economic and Social
Cooperation provides Article 55 (c) the "universal respect for, and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion".
Article 56 requires States to take joint and separate actions in
cooperation with the UN to achieve their mutual aims. Human rights are
inherent in the progress of economic social and cultural goals and therefore to Human Development as such.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights. Drafted
by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from
all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United
Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 by General
Assembly resolution 217 A (III) as a common standard of achievements for
all peoples and all nations. It sets out, for the first time,
fundamental human rights to be universally protected. Since its adoption
in 1948, the UDHR has been translated into more than 500 languages -
the most translated document in the world - and has inspired the
constitutions of many newly independent States and many new democracies.
The UDHR, together with the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and its two Optional Protocols (on the complaints
procedure and on the death penalty) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its Optional Protocol, form the
so-called International Bill of Human Rights.
The Declaration on the Right to Development was proclaimed by the UNGA under resolution 41/128 in 1986. with only the United States voting against the resolution and eight absentions.
The Right to development
is regarded as an inalienable human right which all peoples are
entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social,
cultural and political development. The right includes 1) people-centred
development, identifying "the human person" as the central subject,
participant and beneficiary of development; 2) a human rights-based
approach specifically requiring that development is to be carried out in
a manner "in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be
fully realized"; 3) participation, calling for the "active, free and
meaningful participation" of people in development; 4) equity,
underlining the need for "the fair distribution of the benefits" of
development; 5) non-discrimination, permitting "no distinction as to
race, sex, language or religion"; and 6) self-determination, the
declaration integrates self-determination, including full sovereignty
over natural resources, as a constituent element of the right to
development.
The right is a third generation right viewed as a group right
such that it is owed to communities as opposed to an individual right
applying to individuals "It is a people, not an individual, that is
entitled to the right to self-determination and to national and global
development"
One obstacle to the right is in the difficult process of defining
'people' for the purposes of self- determination. Additionally, most
developing states voice concerns about the negative impacts of aspects
of international trade, unequal access to technology and crushing debt
burden and hope to create binding obligations to facilitate development
as a way of improving governance and the rule of law. The right to
development embodies three additional attributes which clarify its
meaning and specify how it may reduce poverty 1) The first is a holistic
approach which integrates human rights into the process 2) an enabling
environment offers fairer terms in the economic relations for developing
countries and 3) the concept of social justice and equity involves the
participation of the people of countries involved and a fair
distribution of developmental benefits with special attention given to
marginalised and vulnerable members of the population.
Duty bearers
Article
3 of the Declaration on the Right to Development provides that "States
have the primary responsibility for the creation of national and
international conditions favourable to the realization of the right to
development".
Article 6 importantly provides "States should take steps to
eliminate obstacles to development resulting from failure to observe
civil and political rights, as well as economic social and cultural
rights", echoing Article 2.1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR) which states that "each State Party to the present Covenant
undertakes to take steps, individually and through international
assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the
maximum of its available resources. Furthermore, the Maastricht
Guidelines
on violations of economic, social and cultural rights provides that a
state is in violation of the Covenant if it fails to utilize the
maximum of available resources towards the full realization of the
Covenant.
UN mechanisms
The Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development
was established in 1998. Its mandate is to globally (a) monitor and
review progress made at the national and international levels in the
promotion and implementation of the right to development as elaborated
in the Declaration on the Right to Development; (b) provide
recommendations and analyse obstacles to the full enjoyment of the right
to development, focusing each year on specific commitments in the
Declaration; and (c) review reports and any other information submitted
by States, United Nations agencies, other relevant international
organisations and non-governmental organisations on the relationship
between their activities and the right to development.
Led by the Chair-Rapporteur, the Working Group presents to the
General Assembly and the Human Rights Council with a sessional annual
report on its deliberations, including advice to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(OHCHR) with regard to the implementation of the right to development,
and suggesting possible programmes of technical assistance at the
request of interested countries with the aim of promoting the
implementation of the right to development.
The mandate of the High Commissioner (HC) and the OHCHR as stated in resolution 48/141 4 (c)
seeks "to promote and protect the realization of the right to
development and to enhance support from relevant bodies of the UN system
for this purpose." The right to development is highlighted in the
General Assembly and the HRC which both request the UN Secretary-General
and the HC to report annually on progress in the implementation of the
right to development including activities aimed at strengthening the
global partnership for development between Member States, development
agencies and international development, financial and trade
institutions.
Human rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
It is increasingly recognized that human rights are essential to achieve sustainable development. The Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs) served as a proxy for certain economic and social rights but
ignored other important human rights linkages. By contrast, human rights
principles and standards are now strongly reflected in an ambitious new
global development framework, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
In September 2015, 170 world leaders gathered at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in New York to adopt the 2030 Agenda. The new Agenda covers a broad set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) and 167 targets and will serve as the overall framework to guide
global and national development action for the next 15 years.
The SDGs are the result of the most consultative and inclusive
process in the history of the United Nations. Grounded in international
human rights law, the agenda offers critical opportunities to further
advance the realization of human rights for all people everywhere,
without discrimination.
States have the primary role in preventing and addressing corporate related human rights abuses under resolution 8/7
governments can support and strengthen market pressures on companies
to respect rights whilst adequate reporting enables stakeholders to
examine rights related performance. To fulfil the duty to protect states
must regulate and adjudicate the acts of business enterprises.
International Human rights treaties do not themselves create direct
obligations for corporations but treaty bodies refer more directly to
the role of states in specifically guarding against human rights
violations by corporations. The more recent Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
clearly provides that state parties have an obligation to take all
appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of
disability by any person organization or private enterprise.
Business enterprises should respect human rights, avoiding
infringing on the human rights of others and they should address adverse
human rights impacts when they are involved. The responsibility of
business enterprises to respect human rights refers to those rights as
expressed in the International Bill of Human Rights and the principles
concerning fundamental rights set out in the International Labour OrganizationDeclaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.
As part of their duty to protect against business related human rights
abuse States must take appropriate steps to ensure that those affected
have access to effective remedy through judicial, administrative,
legislative or other appropriate means.
Since the 1990s soft law
instruments have been relied upon to guide corporate behaviour such as
the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, the UN Global Compact
and the UN draft norms on transnational corporation and other business
enterprises. The OECD Guidelines
cover a wide range of issues including labour and environmental
standards, human rights, corruption, consumer protection, technology
amongst others. The guidelines are completely voluntary and were revised
in 2000 and updated in 2011. In 2000 a complaint procedure was
introduced allowing NGO's and others to submit complaints to alleged
breaches where previously only trade unions could submit complaints. The
2011 update introduced a specific chapter on human rights and aligns
the guidelines with the UN Special Rapporteur framework of "protect
respect and remedy".
In 2000 the UN established the Global Compact
which call on business leaders "embrace and enact' a set of 10
principles relating to human rights, labour rights, environmental
protections and corruption. The compact did not include a mechanism for
dispute resolution. In response to this criticism integrity measures
were introduced in 2005 which created a complaints procedure for
systematic abuse of the compacts overall aims and principles.
There has also emerged over the past decades a proliferation of
company specific and multi-stakeholder codes of conduct such as the Sullivan principles
and as such hundreds of companies have now publicly committed to
upholding basic human rights. Codes of conduct are regarded as part of
the soft law regime and are not legally binding but the general
normative effect may lead to legal effect as standards may be
incorporated into employment and agency contracts.
Sanctuary city (French: ville sanctuaire; Spanish: ciudad santuario) refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America,
that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to
enforce immigration law. Leaders of sanctuary cities say they want to
reduce fear of deportation and possible family break-up among people who
are in the country illegally,
so that such people will be more willing to report crimes, use health
and social services, and enroll their children in school. In the United
States, municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees
from questioning people about their immigration status and refusing
requests by national immigration authorities to detain people beyond
their release date, if they were jailed for breaking local law. Such policies can be set expressly in law (de jure) or observed in practice (de facto), but the designation "sanctuary city" does not have a precise legal definition. The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimated in 2018 that 564 U.S. jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, had adopted sanctuary policies.
Studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime
have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or
that sanctuary cities have lower crime rates and stronger economies than
comparable non-sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary city policies substantially reduce deportations of
undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records, but have no
impact on those who have violent criminal records.
Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the
national government in enforcing immigration law, and that sanctuary
cities increase crime. Supporters of sanctuary cities argue that
enforcement of federal law is not the duty of localities, and that law
enforcement resources can be prioritized towards better purposes.
European cities have been inspired by the same political currents of the sanctuary movement as American cities, but the term "sanctuary city" now has different meanings in Europe and North America. In the United Kingdom and in continental Europe, sanctuary city refers to cities that are committed to welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. There are at least 80 towns, cities, and local areas with this policy in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
with an emphasis on building bridges of connection and understanding
through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural
connections. However, this is in relation to documented refugees and
asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants. Glasgow and Swansea have become noted sanctuary cities.
Tradition
The concept of a sanctuary city goes back thousands of years. It has been associated with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Baháʼí, Sikhism, and Hinduism. In Western Civilization, sanctuary cities can be traced back to the Old Testament. The Book of Numbers commands the selection of six cities of refuge in which the perpetrators of accidental manslaughter could claim the right of asylum. Outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law. In AD 392, Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I
set up sanctuaries under church control. In AD 600 in medieval
England, churches were given a general right of sanctuary, and some
cities were set up as sanctuaries by Royal charter. The general right of sanctuary for churches in England was abolished in 1621.
The
movement that established sanctuary cities in the United States began in
the early 1980s. The movement traces its roots to religious philosophy,
as well as the histories of resistance movements to perceived state
injustices.
The sanctuary city movement took place in the 1980s to challenge the US
government's refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American
refugees. These asylum seekers were arriving from countries in Central America like El Salvador and Guatemala
that were politically unstable. More than 75,000 Salvadoreans and
200,000 Guatemalans were killed in civil wars in these countries.
Faith-based groups in the US Southwest initially drove the movement of
the 1980s, with eight churches publicly declaring to be sanctuaries in
March 1982.
John Fife, a minister and movement leader, famously wrote in a letter
to Attorney General William Smith: "the South-side United Presbyterian
Church will publicly violate the Immigration and Nationality Act by
allowing sanctuary in its church for those from Central America."
A milestone in the U.S. sanctuary city movement occurred in 1985 in San Francisco,
which passed the largely symbolic “City of Refuge” resolution. The
resolution was followed the same year by an ordinance which prohibited
the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration
enforcement–the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the U.S. As of 2018, more than 560 cities, states and counties considered themselves sanctuaries.
Terminology
Sanctuary Cities in the United States*
State has legislation in place that establishes a statewide sanctuary for undocumented immigrants
County or county equivalent either contains a municipality that is a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants, or is one itself
All county jails in the state do not honor ICE detainers
Alongside
statewide legislation or policies establishing sanctuary for
undocumented immigrants, the county contains a municipality that has
policy or has taken action to further provide sanctuary to undocumented
immigrants
*Map is based on data published by ICE in a February 2017 report outlining jurisdictions that have declined ICE detainers.
Several different terms and phrases are used to describe immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally. The term alien is considered insensitive by many (how many?) and a LexisNexis search showed that its use in reports on immigration has declined substantially, making up just 5% of terms used in 2013. Usage of the word "illegal" and phrases using the word (e.g., illegal alien, illegal immigrant, illegal worker and illegal migrant) has declined, accounting for 82% of language used in 1996, 75% in 2002, 60% in 2007, and 57% in 2013. Several other phrases are competing for wide acceptance: undocumented immigrant (usage in news reports increased from 6% in 1996 to 14% in 2013); unauthorized immigrant (3% usage in 2013 and rarely seen before that time), and undocumented person or undocumented people (1% in 2007, increasing to 3% in 2013). "The U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021", which President Joe Biden is sending to Congress, would eliminate the word "alien" from federal immigration laws and replace it with "noncitizen".
Media outlets' policies as to use of terms differ, and no consensus has yet emerged in the press. In 2013, the Associated Press changed its AP Stylebook to provide that "Except in direct quotes essential to the story, use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant. Acceptable variations include living in or entering a country illegally or without legal permission." Within several weeks, major U.S. newspapers such as Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today adopted similar guidance. The New York Times style guide similarly states that the term illegal immigrant
may be considered "loaded or offensive" and advises journalists to
"explain the specific circumstances of the person in question or to
focus on actions: who crossed the border illegally; who overstayed a visa; who is not authorized to work in this country." The style book discourages the use of illegal as a noun and the "sinister-sounding" alien. Both unauthorized and undocumented
are acceptable, but the stylebook notes that the former "has a flavor
of euphemism and should be used with caution outside quotation" and the
latter has a "bureaucratic tone." The Washington Post stylebook "says 'illegal immigrant' is accurate and acceptable, but notes that some find it offensive"; the Post "does not refer to people as 'illegal aliens' or 'illegals,' per its guidelines.
Electoral politics
This
issue entered presidential politics in the race for the Republican
Party Presidential Nomination in 2008. Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform and specifically attacked sanctuary cities. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney accused Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of running it as a sanctuary city.
Mayor Giuliani's campaign responded saying that Governor Romney ran a
sanctuary Governor's mansion, and that New York City is not a "haven"
for undocumented immigrants.
Following the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco (a sanctuary city) by an undocumented immigrant, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D-NY) told CNN
that "The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal
government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no
support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted
on."
The following day, her campaign stated: "Hillary Clinton believes that
sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended
those policies going back years."
Trump administration agenda
On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Justice Department sued the state of California, the Governor Jerry Brown, and the state's attorney general, Xavier Becerra,
over three state laws passed in recent months, saying the laws made it
impossible for federal immigration officials to do their jobs and deport
criminals who were born outside the United States. The Justice
Department called the laws unconstitutional and asked a judge to block
them. The lawsuit says the state laws “reflect a deliberate effort by
California to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal
immigration law.”
The Trump administration previously released a list of immigration
principles to Congress. The list included funding a wall along the
U.S.-Mexico border, a crackdown on the influx of Central American
minors, and curbs on federal grants to sanctuary cities.
A pledge to strip "all federal funding to sanctuary cities" was a key
Trump campaign theme. President Trump issued an executive order which
declared that jurisdictions that "refuse to comply" with 8 U.S.C. 1373—a
provision of federal law on information sharing between local and
federal authorities—would be ineligible to receive federal grants.
States and cities have shown varying responses to the executive
order. Thirty-three states introduced or enacted legislation requiring
local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE
officers and requests to hold non-citizen inmates for deportation.
Other states and cities have responded by not cooperating with federal
immigration efforts or by showcasing welcoming policies towards
immigrants.
California openly refused the administration's attempts to "clamp down
on sanctuary cities". A federal judge in San Francisco agreed with two
California municipalities that a presidential attempt to cut them off
from federal funding for not complying with deportation requests was
unconstitutional, ultimately issuing a nationwide permanent injunction against the facially unconstitutional provisions of the order.
On March 27, 2018, the all-Republican Board of Supervisors in Orange
County, California voted to join the Justice Department's lawsuit
against the state.
In Chicago a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration may not
withhold public safety grants to sanctuary cities. These decisions have
been seen as a setback to the administration's efforts to force local
jurisdictions to help federal authorities with the policing of illegal
immigrants. On July 5, 2018, a federal judge upheld two of California's Sanctuary laws, but struck down a key provision in the third.
Local officials who oppose the president's policies say that
complying with federal immigration officers will ruin the trust
established between law enforcement and immigrant communities.
Supporters of the president's policies say that protection of immigrants
from enforcement makes communities less safe and undermines the rule of
law.
On July 12, 2019, federal appeals court in Seattle in a 2-to-1 opinion
overturned a nationwide injunction issued last year by a federal judge
in Los Angeles. The appeals court said awarding extra points in the
application process to cities that cooperate was consistent with the
goals of the grant program created by Congress.
Federal Law
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
addressed the relationship between the federal government and local
governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for
possible deportation.
Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities' bans against municipal
workers reporting a person's immigration status to federal authorities. However, nothing in the law forces states or local governments to help the federal government with immigration enforcement.
Section 287(g)
makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to
enter into agreements with the federal government to be trained in
immigration enforcement and, subsequent to such training, to enforce
immigration law. However, it provides no general power for immigration
enforcement by state and local authorities.
This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five
states, California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the
end of 2006. On June 16, 2007, the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a United States Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo
(R-Colo.) was the sponsor of this amendment. 50 Democrats joined
Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass
the United States Senate to become effective.
In 2007, Republican representatives introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities. Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo introduced the bill. The legislation would make undocumented immigrant status a felony,
instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by
withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds
from the cities.
On September 5, 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a House
committee that he certainly wouldn't tolerate interference by sanctuary
cities that would block his "Basic Pilot Program" that requires
employers to validate the legal status of their workers. "We're
exploring our legal options. I intend to take as vigorous legal action
as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of
interference."
On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13768 directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law.
He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin issuing
weekly public reports that include "a comprehensive list of criminal
actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or
otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens." Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University,
has argued that Trump's withholding of federal funding would be
unconstitutional: "Trump and future presidents could use [the executive
order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing
dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without
authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the
order a threat to separation of powers, as well." On April 25, 2017, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction halting this executive order. The injunction was made permanent on November 20, 2017, when Judge Orrick ruled that section 9(a) of the order was "unconstitutional on its face". The judgment concluded that the order violates "the separation of powers doctrine and deprives [the plaintiffs] of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights."
In December 2018 the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
struck down a federal law that criminalized encouraging people to enter
or live in the U.S. illegally. The court said the law was too broad in
restricting the basic right of free speech under the First Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution. Opponents of the law argued that it was a
danger to lawyers advising immigrants and to public officials who
support sanctuary policies.
Jurisdiction
Whether federal or local government has jurisdiction to detain
and deport undocumented immigrants is a tricky and unsettled issue,
because the U.S. Constitution
does not provide a clear answer. Both federal and local government
offer arguments to defend their authority. The issue of jurisdiction has
been vigorously debated dating back to the Alien Act of 1798. Opponents of local level policing tend to use the Naturalization Clause and the Migration clause in the Constitution as textual confirmation of federal power. Because the Supremacy Clause is generally interpreted to mean that federal law takes priority over state law, the U.S. Supreme Court
in the majority of cases has ruled in favor of the federal government.
Certain states have been affected by illegal immigration more than
others and have attempted to pass legislation that limits access by
undocumented immigrants to public benefits. A notable case was Arizona's
SB 1070 law, which was passed in 2010 and struck down in 2012 by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.
States like Arizona, Texas and Nevada justify the aggressive
actions they have taken to be the result of insufficient efforts by the
federal government to address issues, like the use of schools and
hospitals by undocumented immigrants, and changes to the cultural
landscape—impacts that are most visible on a local level.
Ambiguity and confusion over jurisdiction is one of the reasons why
local and state policies for and against sanctuary cities vary widely
depending on the location in the country.
Effects
Crime
Studies show that sanctuary cities either have no impact on crime or that they lower the crime rate.
According to an article done by Gale Opposing Viewpoints, a
2015 study by the American Immigration Council "determined that both
documented and undocumented immigrants are less likely to engage in
criminal behavior than native-born Americans," and that there was a
decrease in "violent crime and serious property crime in cities with
growing migrant populations."
A 2017 study in the journal Urban Affairs Review found that sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime. The findings of the study were misinterpreted by Attorney General Jeff Sessions
in a July 2017 speech when he claimed that the study showed that
sanctuary cities were more prone to crime than cities without sanctuary
policies. A third study in the journal Justice Quarterly
found evidence that the adoption of sanctuary policies reduced the
robbery rate, but had no impact on the homicide rate except in cities
with larger Mexican undocumented immigrant populations, which had lower
rates of homicide.
According to a study by Tom K. Wong, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, published by the Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank:
"Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties
compared to non-sanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in
sanctuary counties – from higher median household income, less poverty,
and less reliance on public assistance, to higher labor force
participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower
unemployment."
The study also concluded that sanctuary cities build trust between
local law enforcement and the community, which enhances public safety
overall. The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino."
A 2020 study found that California Senate Bill 54 (2017), a sanctuary city legislation, had no significant impact on violent and property crime rates in California.
A 2021 study found that Latinos were more likely to report crime
victimization to law enforcement after sanctuary policies were adopted
in their areas of residence.
Economy
Advocates
of local enforcement of immigration laws argue that more regulatory
local immigration policies would cause immigrants to flee those cities
and possibly the United States altogether,
while opponents argue that regulatory policies on immigrants wouldn't
affect their presence because immigrants looking for work will relocate
towards economic opportunity despite challenges living there. Undocumented migrants tend to be attracted to states with more economic opportunity and individual freedom.
Because there is no reliable data that asks for immigration status,
there is no way to tell empirically if regulatory policies do have an
effect on immigrant presence. A study comparing restrictive counties
with nonrestrictive counties found that local jurisdictions that enacted
regulatory immigration policies experienced a 1–2% negative effect in
employment.
Health and well-being
A
preliminary study's results imply that the number of sanctuary cities
in the U.S. positively affects well-being in the undocumented immigrant
population.
Concerning health, a study in North Carolina found that after
implementation of section 287(g), prenatal Hispanic/Latina mothers were
more likely than non-Hispanic/Latina mothers to have late or inadequate
prenatal care. The study's interviews indicated that Hispanics/Latinos
in the section 287(g) counties had distrust in health services among
other services and had fear about going to the doctor.
Laws and policies by state and city
A
map of U.S. states colored by their policy on sanctuary cities as of
2022. States colored in Red have banned sanctuary cities statewide.
States highlighted in Blue are pro-sanctuary states, whereas States
colored Gray are unknown to be either a pro- or anti- sanctuary state.
Alabama
Alabama has banned sanctuary cities. The state law (Alabama HB 56)
was enacted in 2011, calling for proactive immigration enforcement;
however, many provisions are either blocked by the federal courts or
subject to ongoing lawsuits.
On January 31, 2017, William A. Bell, the mayor of Birmingham,
declared the city a "welcoming city" and said that the police would not
be "an enforcement arm of the federal government" with respect to
federal immigration law. He also stated that the city would not require
proof of citizenship for granting business licenses. The Birmingham City
Council subsequently passed a resolution supporting Birmingham being a
"sanctuary city".
Arizona
Arizona has banned sanctuary cities. Following the passage of Arizona SB 1070,
a state law, few if any cities in Arizona are "sanctuary cities." A
provision of SB 1070 requires local authorities to "contact federal
immigration authorities if they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they've detained or arrested is in the country illegally."
The Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration group, labels only one city in the state, South Tucson, a "sanctuary city"; the label is because South Tucson does not honor ICE detainers "unless ICE pays for cost of detention".
In 2019, Tucson
held a citywide vote on Proposition 205, which would have declared it a
sanctuary city. However, the proposition failed 70–30. Amongst others, Democratic outgoing MayorJonathan Rothschild and mayoral candidatesSteve Farley, Randi Dorman and eventual winner Regina Romero, alongside city councilmembers and US Senate candidate Mark Kelly endorsed a "No" vote.
Arkansas
Arkansas has banned sanctuary cities.
California
On October 5, 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill, SB 54,
that makes California a "sanctuary state". It prohibits local and state
agencies from cooperating with ICE regarding undocumented individuals
who have committed misdemeanors. According to the National Immigration Law Center in 2016, about a dozen California cities have some formal sanctuary policy, and none of the 58 California counties "complies with detainer requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement."
Berkeley became the first city in the United States to pass a sanctuary resolution on November 8, 1971.
Additional local governments in certain cities in the United States
began designating themselves as sanctuary cities during the 1980s. Some have questioned the accuracy of the term "sanctuary city" as used in the US. The policy was initiated in 1979 in Los Angeles, to prevent the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. Many Californian cities have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning city employees and public safety personnel from asking people about their immigration status.
Coachella - 95% Latino, 2nd highest percentage Latino city in Southern California, adopted the sanctuary policy in 2015.
Huntington Beach
obtained a ruling from the state Supreme Court that the protections in
California for immigrants who are in the country illegally do not apply
to the 121 charter cities. The Orange County city is the first to successfully challenge SB 54.
Los Angeles – In 1979, the Los Angeles City Council adopted Special Order 40, barring LAPD officers from initiating contact with a person solely to determine their immigration status. However, the city frequently cooperates with federal immigration authorities. Los Angeles MayorEric Garcetti does not use the phrase "sanctuary city" to describe the city because the label is unclear.
San Francisco
"declared itself a sanctuary city in 1989, and city officials
strengthened the stance in 2013 with its 'Due Process for All'
ordinance. The law declared local authorities could not hold immigrants
for immigration officials if they had no violent felonies on their
records and did not currently face charges." The city issues a Resident ID Card regardless of the applicant's immigration status. The 2015 shooting of Kathryn Steinle provoked debate about San Francisco's "sanctuary city" policy.
On
May 29, 2019, Governor Jared Polis signed House Bill 1124 immediately
prohibiting law enforcement officials in Colorado from holding
undocumented immigrants solely on the basis of a request from U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Denver does not identify as a sanctuary city. The Denver Post
reports: "The city doesn't have an ordinance staking out a claim or
barring information-sharing with federal officials about a person's
immigration status, unlike some cities. But it is among cities that
don't enforce immigration laws or honor federal 'detainer' requests to
hold immigrants with suspect legal status in jail past their release
dates.
Estes Park
police chief Wes Kufeld stated that, "As far as day-to-day policing,
people are not required to provide proof of immigration status, and our
officers are not required by ICE to check immigration status, nor to
conduct sweeps for undocumented individuals. So, we don’t do these
things." He added that town police do assist ICE in the arrest and
detainment of any undocumented immigrant suspected of a felony.
In 2013, Connecticut passed a law that gives local law enforcement
officers discretion to carry out immigration detainer requests, though
only for suspected felons.
Hartford
passed an ordinance providing services to all residents regardless of
their immigration in 2008. Said ordinance also prohibits police from
detaining individuals based solely on their immigration status, or
inquiring as to their immigration status. In 2016, the ordinance was
amended to declare that Hartford is a "Sanctuary City", although the
term itself does not have an established legal meaning.
On February 3, 2017, Middletown, CT
declared itself a sanctuary city. This was in direct response to
President Trump's executive order. Middletown's mayor, Daniel T Drew,
said: “We don't just take orders from the President of the United
States”
Florida
Florida has banned sanctuary cities.
In January 2017 Miami-Dade County rescinded a policy of insisting the U.S. government pay for detention of persons on a federal list. Republican Mayor Carlos Gimenez
ordered jails to "fully cooperate" with Presidential immigration
policy. He said he did not want to risk losing a larger amount of
federal financial aid for not complying. The mayor said Miami-Dade
County has never considered itself to be a sanctuary city.
St. PetersburgDemocratic Mayor Rick Kriseman
said residents from all backgrounds implored him to declare a sanctuary
city. In February 2017 he blogged that, "I have no hesitation in
declaring St. Petersburg a sanctuary from harmful federal immigration
laws. We will not expend resources to help enforce such laws, nor will
our police officers stop, question or arrest an individual solely on the
basis that they may have unlawfully entered the United States." He said
the county sheriff's office has ultimate responsibility for notifying
federal officials about people illegally in the city. The mayor
criticized President Trump for "demonization of Muslims."
In June 2019, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis
signed a bill that bans sanctuary cities. The bill prohibits local
governments from enacting "sanctuary" policies that protect undocumented
immigrants from deportation and all law enforcement agencies in Florida
will have to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.Florida became the 12th state to ban sanctuary cities.
Georgia
Georgia
banned "sanctuary cities" in 2010, and in 2016 went further by
requiring local governments, in order to obtain state funding, to
certify that they cooperate with federal immigration officials.
The mayor of Atlanta, Georgia
in January 2017 declared the city was a “welcoming city” and “will
remain open and welcoming to all”. This statement was in response to
President's Trump's executive orders related to “public safety agencies
and the communities they serve”. Nonetheless, Atlanta does not consider
itself to be a “sanctuary city”. Atlanta also has refused to house new ICE detainees in its jail, but will keep the current detainees.
Illinois
On August 28, 2017, Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner
signed a bill into law that prohibited state and local police from
arresting anyone solely due to their immigration status or due to
federal detainers. Some fellow Republicans criticized Rauner for his action, claiming the
bill made Illinois a sanctuary state. However, the Illinois associations
for Sheriffs and Police Chiefs stated that the bill does not prevent
cooperation with the federal government or give sanctuary for
undocumented immigrants. Both organizations support the bill.
Chicago became a "de jure" sanctuary city in 2012 when Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City Council passed the Welcoming City Ordinance.
The ordinance protects residents' rights to access city services
regardless of immigration status and states that Chicago police officers
cannot arrest individuals on the basis of immigration status alone. The status was reaffirmed in 2016.
In New Orleans the New Orleans Police Department began a new policy to "no longer cooperate with federal immigration enforcement" beginning on Feb. 28, 2016. However, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, there is "no evidence" that New Orleans is a sanctuary city.
Maine
A 2004
executive order prohibited state officials from inquiring about
immigration statuses of individuals seeking public assistance, but in
2011, the incoming Maine governor Paul LePage
rescinded this, stating “it is the intent of this administration to
promote rather than hinder the enforcement of federal immigration law."
In 2015, Governor LePage accused Portland
of being a sanctuary city based on the fact that “city employees are
prohibited from asking about the immigration status of people seeking
city services unless compelled by a court or law," but Portland city officials did not accept that characterization.
Maryland
In 2008, Baltimore and Takoma Park are sometimes identified as sanctuary cities. However, "[m]ost local governments in Maryland – including Baltimore – still share information with the federal government." In 2016, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said that she did not consider Baltimore to be a "sanctuary city."
Massachusetts
Massachusetts has a pro-sanctuary city law. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in July 2017 that a person cannot be held solely due to an ICE detainer.
Boston has an ordinance, enacted in 2014, that bars the Boston Police Department "from detaining anyone based on their immigration status unless they have a criminal warrant." Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville, Orleans, Northampton, and Springfield have similar legislation. In August 2016, Boston Police Commissioner, William B. Evans re-issued a memo stating “all prisoners who are subject to ICE Detainers must receive equal access to bail commissioners,
which includes notifying said prisoner of his or her right to seek
bail.” Bail commissioners are informed of the person's status on an ICE
detainer list and may set bail accordingly.
Michigan
Detroit and Ann Arbor
are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary cities" because they "have
anti-profiling ordinances that generally prohibit local police from
asking about the immigration status of people who are not suspected of
any crime."
Unlike San Francisco's ordinance, however, the Detroit and Ann Arbor
policies do not bar local authorities from cooperating and assisting ICE and Customs and Border Protection, and both cities frequently do so.
Kalamazoo
re-affirmed its status as a sanctuary city in 2017. Vice Mayor Don
Cooney stated, "We care about you. We will protect you. We are with
you."
Lansing
voted to become a sanctuary city in April 2017, but reversed the
decision a week later due to public and business opposition. An order by
mayor Virg Bernero still prohibits Lansing police officers from asking residents about their immigration status, however.
Minnesota
Minneapolis has an ordinance, adopted in 2003,
that directs local law enforcement officers "not to 'take any law
enforcement action' for the sole purpose of finding undocumented
immigrants, or ask an individual about his or her immigration status."
The Minneapolis ordinance does not bar cooperation with federal
authorities: "The city works cooperatively with the Homeland Security,
as it does with all state and federal agencies, but the city does not
operate its programs for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration
laws. The Homeland Security has the legal authority to enforce
immigration laws in the United States, in Minnesota and in the city."
Mississippi
Mississippi has banned sanctuary cities.
Missouri
Missouri has banned sanctuary cities.
Montana
On April 2, 2021, Governor Greg Gianforte signed a bill that bans Sanctuary cities in the state of Montana into law. Montana became the 13th state to ban sanctuary cities.
Albany - Mayor Kathy Sheehan
stated that the city complies with federal law and cooperates with ICE,
but she asserted that comments by national government officials show a
failure "to understand what is happening in our cities and why a city
like Albany would choose to label itself as a sanctuary city."
Among
the municipalities which are considered sanctuary cities are Asbury
Park, Camden, East Orange, Hoboken, Jersey City, Linden, New Brunswick,
Newark, North Bergen, Plainfield, Trenton and Union City. Those with specific executive orders made by mayors or resolution by municipal councils are:
North Carolina has banned sanctuary cities.
The state currently restricts any city or municipality from refusing to
cooperate with federal immigration and customs enforcement officials.
There are therefore no official sanctuary cities in the state. A bill,
under consideration as of March 2017, is entitled Citizens Protection
Act of 2017 or HB 63. Under the new provisions, the state would be able
to deny bail to undocumented immigrants for whom Immigration and
Customs Enforcements (ICE) has issued a detainer; allow the state to
withhold tax revenues from cities who are not in compliance with the
statewide immigration regulations; and encourage tipsters to identify
municipalities which violate these laws.
As of 2019, Ohio, Kentucky and Michigan are pushing for 'anti sanctuary cities' measures in their states.
Oregon
State law
passed in 1987: "Oregon Revised Statute 181.850, which prohibits law
enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from
enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their
race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any
criminal activities.
Beaverton
city council passed a resolution in January 2017 stating, in part, "The
City of Beaverton is committed to living its values as a welcoming city
for all individuals ...regardless of a person's ... immigration status"
and that they would abide by Oregon state law of not enforcing federal
immigration laws.
Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney
said in November 2016 that federal immigration policies lead to more
crime, and that crime rates declined the year he reinstated a sanctuary
city policy.
U.S. Attorney General Sessions has included Philadelphia on the list of
cities threatened with subpoenas if they fail to provide documents to
show whether local law enforcement officers are sharing information with
federal immigration authorities.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island has a pro-sanctuary city law.
South Carolina
South Carolina has banned sanctuary cities.
Tennessee
Tennessee
state law bars "local governments or officials from making policies
that stop local entities from complying with federal immigration law." In 2017, legislation proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly would go further, withholding funding from local governments deemed insufficiently cooperative with the federal government.
In Nashville, mayor David Briley,
signed an executive order in September 2019 directing city attorneys to
investigate grounds for challenging Tennessee's anti-sanctuary-city
law. However, after losing the 2019 mayoral election, his successor, John Cooper rescinded the order in December 2019, saying that Nashville "cannot and will not be a sanctuary city". However, Cooper did not support "federalizing the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department",
saying that "our police needs to be for us and our local law
enforcement and not always being agents of the federal government, the
IRS, the EPA, Alcohol and Tobacco or ICE. If they have a non-judicial
warrant, that has not ever been before a judge, it needs to be a lower
priority for what we need to do."
Texas
In Texas
no city has formally declared "sanctuary" status, but a few do not
fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities and have drawn a
negative response from the legislature.
Bills seeking to deprive state funding from police departments and
municipalities that do not cooperate with federal authorities were
introduced into the Texas Legislature several times. On February 1, 2017, Texas Governor Greg Abbott blocked funding to Travis County, Texas due to its recently implemented de facto sanctuary city policy. On May 7, 2017, Abbott signed Texas Senate Bill 4
into law, effectively banning sanctuary cities by charging county or
city officials who refuse to work with federal officials and by allowing
police officers to check the immigration status of those they detain if
they choose. In May 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the law does not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Vermont
Vermont has a pro-sanctuary city law.
Washington
Washington
enacted a measure in June 2019 in favor of sanctuary cities, similar to
California and Oregon laws which are among the strongest statewide
mandates in the nation.
Toronto was the first city in Canada to declare itself a sanctuary city, with the Toronto City Council voting 37–3 on February 22, 2013, to adopt a formal policy allowing undocumented migrants to access city services. Hamilton, Ontario declared itself a sanctuary city in February 2014 after the Hamilton City Council voted unanimously to allow undocumented immigrants to access city-funded services such as shelters, housing and food banks. In response to US President Donald Trump's Executive Order 13769, the city council of London, Ontario voted unanimously to declare London a sanctuary city in January 2017 with Montreal doing the same in February 2017 after a unanimous vote. (However Montreal removed its sanctuary city status in 2019).
Western Canada
While Vancouver
is not a sanctuary city, it adopted an "Access to City Services without
Fear" policy for residents that are undocumented or have an uncertain
immigration status in April 2016. The policy does not apply to municipal services operated by individual boards, including services provided by the Vancouver Police Department, Vancouver Public Library, or Vancouver Park Board.
As of February 2017, the cities of Calgary, Ottawa, Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg are considering motions to declare themselves sanctuary cities.
As of September 9, 2018, Edmonton adopted "Access Without Fear" policy for undocumented and vulnerable residents.
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom, sanctuary cities provide services – such as housing, education, and cultural integration – to asylum seekers (i.e. persons fleeing one country and seeking protection in another). The movement began in Sheffield in the north of England
in 2005. It was motivated by a national policy adopted in 1999 to
disperse asylum seekers to different towns and cities in the UK.
Sheffield
In 2009, the city council of Sheffield, UK drew up a manifesto outlining key areas of concern and 100 supporting organizations signed on.
A city's status as a place of sanctuary is not necessarily a formal governmental designation. The organization City of Sanctuary encourages local grassroots groups throughout the UK and Ireland to build a culture of hospitality towards asylum seekers.
Glasgow
Glasgow is a noted sanctuary city in Scotland. In 2000 the city council accepted their first asylum seekers relocated by the Home Office.
The Home Office provided funding to support asylum seekers but would
also forcibly deport them ("removal seizures") if it was determined they
could not stay in the UK. As of 2010 Glasgow had accepted 22,000 asylum
seekers from 75 different nations. In 2007, local residents upset by
the human impact of removal seizures, organized watches to warn asylum
seekers when Home Office vans were in the neighborhood. They also
organized protests and vigils which led to the ending of the removal
seizures.
_Lung_on_a_chip.jpg)
