Wow Let's Talk What Are Sanctuary Cities And Are They Actually Legal & Who Cares

Wow Let's Talk What Are Sanctuary Cities And The People's Republic of America is a covert operation run by the U.S.A. And People's Republic of China inside the Washington, D.C. area. It operates out of New World Order Our Father, which art in Washington D.C., but it is unclear if that was its main headquarters or not. The Democratic Peoples Republic of America (DRPA) is a federation of socialist striving to unite the communist and the democratic party to destroy america. under one flag. The American People's Republic is a self-declared state located in People's Republic of Washington State.

Show more

Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain police procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws. These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning. However, anti-immigrant groups are constantly rallying around Sanctuary Cities, claiming that they breed a host of problems caused by undocumented immigrants and sex slave and other force to work in America.

China has established thousands "overseas police service stations" to monitor its citizens abroad, including one in New York City and two in Los Angeles and one in Chicago and one in San Francisco and one in Seattle and three in Toronto, according to a human rights watchdog group. The Safeguard Defenders report claims that the "1,296 overseas stations" so far are used to help the Chinese Communist Party by "cracking down on all kinds of illegal and criminal activities involving overseas Chinese." While the stations claim to help Chinese travelers with paperwork, researchers have found that they are actually "hunting down and blackmailing Chinese citizens to force them to return home." The activity of the stations is all taking place under the radar, unseen by police and the public. In April 2023, two individuals were arrested for operating an illegal MPS police station in Manhattan's Chinatown.

Sharia Law in America Sharia law in the United States of America ("America") has reached penetration phase 3 As the number of court cases in which civil law and Sharia law clash rose across America, many American states introduced bills banning their state courts from accommodating Sharia law.

Many of those bills have been stalled by the Muslim Brotherhood, which accuses the bills' sponsors and supporters of Islamophobia, campaigns against their re-election, and sues in court. States that have managed to pass Sharia law-blocking legislation, known as "ALAC" (American Laws for American Courts), are listed on Islamization of America.

While fighting to a draw in many state legislatures, Sharia law has been advancing faster, in many cases unopposed, in other American institutions, as follows:

An increasing number of America's public schools are commemorating Muslim holidays, serving Halal food, and holding Islamic prayers towards Mecca. In 2014, Rocky Mountain High School in Fort Collins, Colorado became the first American high school to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in Arabic, replacing "One nation under God," with "One nation under Allah".

Bill Clinton was the first US president to hold a White House Eid al-Fitr dinner at the end of Ramadan, the Muslim month-long, dawn-to-dusk fast. Eid al-Fitr includes six Takbirs, the raising of hands and shouting, "Allahu Akbar!" to declare that Allah is "greater" (than the God of Christianity and the idols of other religions - see Jesus vs. Muhammad and Halal). Every US president since Clinton, including George W. Bush, held this blasphemous dinner for a total of 20 years (1996 to 2016) until Donald Trump scrapped it in 2017.

In 2000, the Republican National Convention became the first US presidential convention to open with a Muslim prayer to Allah.

In 2007, Quran for the first time was used to swear into office a new US Congressman, Keith Ellison (right). In 2017, this former spokesman for Nation of Islam became the second highest leader of the Democratic National Committee.

In 2009, a Christian US soldier at Baghram Air Force Base in Afghanistan received Bibles in two local languages from his American church as planned. The US army confiscated those Bibles and instead of at least returning them to his church, burned those Bibles. When Terry Jones, a pastor in Florida, announced his plan to burn a copy of the Quran in 2010, General David Petraeus, the commander of the US military in Afghanistan, publicly objected to his plan, while US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton denounced his plan as "disgraceful".

In the landmark 2010 pro-Sharia ruling on S.D. v. M.J.R., Judge Joseph Charles Jr. of New Jersey concluded that the Muslim ex-husband repeatedly had raped (see Taharrush) his Muslim ex-wife. After testimony from the Muslim man's imam, the judge denied the ex-wife's request for a permanent restraining order against her ex-husband, citing the Muslim man's "belief."

To attract and manage Muslim wealth, an increasing number of American financial institutions quietly began taking steps to become Sharia-compliant. This includes donating a percentage of their annual profits to Islamic groups that are designated by their Sharia-compliance advisors, many of whom belong to the Muslim Brotherhood and funnel funds to Jihadi groups (the donations must go to one or more of eight recipient categories, one of which is Jihad), including Hamas and Hezbollah.

In 2016, candidates who openly identified themselves as Muslims and campaigned for national or statewide offices numbered about 10. In 2018, that number rose 1,000% to about 100 (source).

In 2021, President Joe Biden nominated and the U.S. Senate confirmed Zahid Quraishi as the first Muslim U.S. District Judge, for the District of New Jersey.

https://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/america-sharia-law.html

In 1984 Tried To Warn Us We The People About Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every moment scrutinized. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever.

What this diagram shows is that many of us are still stuck in a dichotomous way of thinking, when there are eons of possibilities for a political perspective. Left and right are the most basic division in politics but that should not encourage or pressure people to conform to simply one side or another.

I love Information and is infographics hold a special place in my heart for their ability to effectively convey information in appealing and efficient ways.

In response to the point you make, I agree that we seem to have been protected from the possible existence of ambivalence in political views as if it were some sort of secret. It feels a little strange to say that it is for the public’s best interest, but that’s sort of what I’m arguing.

The left – right divide may not so much serve as dichotomous camps that we must choose between, rather they serve as a simplified roadmap to guide the less politically aware public. What will determine where you place yourself will depend on how much weight you give to specific topics. It’s generally accepted that the citizenship will not know about where they stand on each individual issue, so by using this shortcut they can hopefully make an educated guess that will eventually serve them well.

Speaker Pelosi's said her laptop had over 18,000+ documents and over 368,000+ pages of emails that were uploaded to who? or hacked by who? before shy got back to her office during the Jan. 6 insurrection. Riley June Williams, 22 was found guilty of six federal counts in November of 2022. Democrats woman of house wearing all white at state of the new world order speech rather than Republicans with red shoe lace who are the true saviors of the new world order and other civil liberties.

A laptop stolen from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the U.S. Capitol attack has not been recovered from the home or car of a Pennsylvania woman accused of helping steal it, the woman’s lawyer said Tuesday. Yes its still missing or sold to who ?

That is how it is going to go down, the timeline might be a bit off. You will have one world faith, which is what the ecumenical movement is about. One world government, and all under control of the New World Order by July 4th 2026 on this the day of America’s up coming 250nd year of independence, unveiled a new updated flag which better reflects the nation in its present form, signaling the aspirations it has for its ever bright future.

Per U.S.A. Government DOA-DOJ-FBI-CIA-Etc. Everyone In U.S.A. All Person And Or America Citizens Right Now Today Is A Criminal As of Oct 2023 Need To Be In Jail Or Pay $$$ Fines Now. Per all federal and local police and all government agencies. All The America People Break The Law's Average 3 Times Everyday with A Average Fine of $512 dollars a day. it add up to $512 x 365 days in a year add up to $186,880 Dollars per year in fines per every person alive today right now. also federal and local agencies issue an average of 27 rules for every law over the past decade.

However, the rules issued in a given year are typically not substantively related to the current year’s laws, as agency output represents ongoing implementation of earlier legislation. Remember That Ignorance of the law is a fundamental legal principle in the US that means that if someone breaks the law, they are still liable even if they had no knowledge of the law being broken. According to a 2020 article, the more than 300,000+ laws and regulatory crimes on the federal law books serve little purpose other than inviting arbitrary enforcement by providing prosecutors the tools to charge nearly anyone every day for your life with violating some long-forgotten regulation or law and to pay the fines now or go to jail for everyone in the U.S.A.. Government Every Man, Women, & Child Is A Criminal & Need 2 Go To Jail for life.

Confiscating Entire Wealth of All The Billionaires and Kill Them and Family Too! There are 724 (billionaires) in the U.S., and more overseas according to the 2021 Forbes billionaires list, released in April,” the Journal reports. “At that point their collective net worth was $4.4 trillion, although that figure has presumably since risen along with the stock market. So Per 60% Death taxes are taxes imposed by the federal and some state governments on someone's estate upon their death - Death taxes are also called death duties, estate taxes, or inheritance taxes. After getting the money maybe in 20 weeks or so - Own Government plan's are to kill rest of the family member for more estate taxes, or inheritance taxes.

Also Government Plan's are to Kill and or Black Mail for Lot's of Money All Epstein’s and Maxwell Private Pedophile Islands Visitor Log's including video equipment and sex tape's of rich people and with DNA Sample Testing and secret video tapes and missing body in underground lairs and a bizarre teen sex temple from Pedophile Islands Guestbook and Visitor List They Do Not Want You to See Ever!

Jeffrey Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell Said We Have 1,000's Video Tape's and have 1,000 Forensic DNA Test's, Blood Test's and Hair Sample's DNA Testing all ready Done Now.

Podesta’s email account was hijacked and the hackers took his entire private library of emails. This sucked hard for Podesta because the hackers had tons of high ranking-sensitive information. From October through November 20,000+ pages of emails were uploaded to wiki-leaks.

Hillary Clinton at a campaign event last month. Cybersecurity experts said that her private email account from when she was secretary of state was probably hacked 38,000+ pages of emails were uploaded Benghazi panel had discovered that Clinton exclusively used her own private pedophile email server rather than a government-issued one throughout her time as Secretary of State, and that her aides took no action to preserve emails sent or received from her personal accounts as required by law.

Hunter Biden when he came into a repair shop in Wilmington, Delaware, the Bidens' hometown, and handed over three laptops After two years of scrutiny, the laptop has produced mountains of material about Hunter Biden's personal struggles, and his foreign business ventures in Ukraine and with China. It has produced direct evidence President Biden benefited from his son's business dealings. Similar incidents involving Hunter Biden's use of drugs and hiring of prostitutes featured on his laptop that was exposed just before the US elections by the New York Post.

Vatican private pedophile trial for sex abuse of 10,000+ kids in pope's youth seminary opens scandal is particularly grave because the true abuse and yes allegedly occurred within Vatican City and All over the World, and the true allegations were known since at least 1960s Thru 2021 pedophile's but were covered up by the Vatican and other church authorities until the victim and his roommate went public. Their stories greatly undermined Pope Francis’ pledges of “zero tolerance” for abuse because the alleged crimes occurred in his own backyard and had gone unpunished for years.

The report also criticized the way the media reported sexual crimes, stating that the New World Order media reported on sexual abuse allegations against Catholic clergy but ignored such allegations against Protestant churches and Jehovah's Witnesses. Stephen Joseph Rossetti, a Catholic priest, reported that the frequency of pedophilia amongst the Catholic clergy is no higher than among general population, and a Catholic priest is no more likely to be a pedophile than an average male.

The 21 Points of Manifesto of the New World Order and Plan to Control and Enslave the World by July 4th 2026 on this the day of Old America’s up coming 250nd year of independence. One world government, and all under control of the New World Order and to unveiled a new updated flag which better reflects the nation in its present form, signaling the aspirations it has for its ever bright future.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

11. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

12. Guide reproduction wisely—improving fitness and diversity.

13. Unite humanity with a living new language.

14. Rule Passion—Faith—Tradition—and all things with tempered reason.

15. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

16. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

17. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

18. Balance personal rights with social duties.

19. Prize truth—beauty—love—seeking harmony with the infinite.

20. Be not a cancer on the earth—Leave room for nature—Leave room for nature.

21. What If Everything You Were Taught Was A Lie?

Secret societies have been in existence all throughout history. Elites, crazed by power and money, band together to exert maximum control over the masses. In 2026 their influence is greater than ever – their tentacles reaching all aspects of our daily life through control of the economy, religion, education and politics.

While the world may seem chaotic and confusing to those who are not in the know, those who have studied the history of international secret societies are blessed with an understanding of the evil agenda pushed by the cabal. Why is it a blessing to understand the evil that is in our midst? Wouldn’t it be better to be naïve and live with our heads in the sand? No. It is only through understanding this evil that we can fight back and reject the New World Order they are working towards.

Why Most America Want And Keep Vote For A Democratic Socialism Vs. Communism In USA Socialism and Communism both place much value on creating a more equal society and removing class privilege. The biggest difference between them is that socialism is compatible with liberty and democracy, while communism depends on an authoritarian state to create an “equal society” that denies basic liberties. Political Independents Who They Are, What They Think. ?

Independents often are portrayed as political free agents with the potential to alleviate the nation’s rigid partisan divisions. Yet the reality is that most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent – less than 10% of the public has no partisan leaning – stand out for their low level of interest in politics.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/03/14/political-independents-who-they-are-what-they-think/

The primary difference between communism vs socialism is the nature of ownership of assets. In communism, the ownership of the factories, residential properties, and agricultural lands is state-owned without any private ownership. However, in socialism, the ownership of land, factories, and agricultural land lie with the private sector or individuals. Socialism can exist within the framework of democracy, whereas democracy has no place in communism. In communism, there is no religion besides the state. Socialism allows people to practice their religion.

How Are Socialism and Communism Different? Though the terms are often used interchangeably, socialism and communism are different in key ways.

Both socialism and communism are essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods (i.e., making money) in a society. Both aim to fix the problems they see as created by a free-market capitalist system, including the exploitation of workers and a widening gulf between rich and poor.

But while socialism and communism share some basic similarities, there are also important differences between them.

Key Differences Between Communism and Socialism
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.

By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.

Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them. In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state. Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.

So per U.S.A. new land reform and confiscation all personal property to pay all new court fines was not only an economic or administrative process of taking and redistributing deeds or legal ownership of land. It was a two party system's republican and democratic parties -led to new mass movement which turned peasants (its you baby) into active participants and which pushed for political and ideological change beyond the immediate economic question of all land confiscation and ownership rights are gone.

If you have a home the state will take it for the fines you own to the state now. you can stay in your old home as a renter with 3 other family to move in with you to help the homeless problem.

In order for housing to be considered affordable, a family should not spend more than 30% of its income on rent. Thus, a working family needs to earn nearly $42 per hour – or roughly $87,000 per year – to afford the average rent in Los Angeles.

In Los Angeles, the median rent is 46.7% or nearly half of median income. 509,404 low-income renter households in the county do not have access to an affordable home.

As of July 10, 2023 - While some states are on a schedule for annual increases to eventually reach $15 an hour, 12 states still adhere to the federal minimum. Although the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 has not budged since 2009, more than 20 states have provided additional increases in 2023.

Why Minimum Wage Isn’t Enough Picture this: Jane Doe is a single adult working a full-time (40 hours per week) minimum wage job. Jane wants to rent a modest one-bedroom apartment. No matter where Jane lives in America, and regardless of whether Jane lives in a state with a minimum wage higher than the federal minimum wage, Jane will be unable to do so.

Why? Because there’s no state in America in which a person working a full-time job that pays minimum wage can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment.

This shocking fact comes from the National Low Income Housing Coalition’s recently-released report, “Out of Reach 2015.” The report analyzes the Department of Housing and urban Development’s estimated Fair Market Rent (FMR)—which is defined as the 40th percentile of rents for typical, non-substandard rental units, including the cost of utilities—in relation to wages earned in each state. The report estimates the earning necessary to rent one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments without spending more than 30 percent of a household’s total income on rent.

Let’s look at how the information presented in this report might impact Jane Doe’s apartment search:

To rent a one-bedroom FMR apartment, Jane would need to earn $15.50 per hour. This is more than twice the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. Even the proposed federal minimum wage of $10.10 per hour would be insufficient for Jane to rent an apartment.

To a rent a two-bedroom FMR apartment, Jane would need to earn $19.35 per hour.
If Jane lives in Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Virginia, or Washington, she’ll need to make over $20 per hour to afford a two-bedroom apartment.

The average national FMR price for a one-bedroom apartment is $806 per month. That means Jane would need to work 86 hours per week in her minimum wage job to afford the cost of rent.

Unfortunately for Jane, findings in the “Out of Reach” report show that her situation is unlikely to improve any time soon. Nationally, rents are rising, wages are lagging behind, and there is a limited supply of affordable housing. With all these barriers to renting an apartment, it’s easy to see how Jane might end up doubled-up with family or friends, severely burdened by the cost of her housing, or homeless.

Unless we take action to increase the supply of affordable housing units (Out of Reach suggests America needs 26.1 million more units to meet demand), increase the minimum wage, and decrease the cost of rent, Jane won’t ever be able to afford her apartment.

U.S.A. Government Every Man, Women, Child Is A Criminal Need Two Go To Jail Confiscation All Personal Property And Land Etc.

Let’s Teach, we’ll seek to answer the following questions: what makes a city a sanctuary for immigrants, and how is this legal? What American cities are currently recognized as sanctuary cities, and which states have outlawed the practice altogether? On the list of divisive issues in the United States, immigration is pretty close to the top. For years, politicians and private citizens have debated and even fiercely argued about what makes someone an American and who should have access to ‘The American Dream’ as we believe it to be. Current immigration policies allow entities such as ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to arrest, detain, and deport immigrants who are believed to be in the country illegally. However, certain cities across the United States have become safe havens for undocumented immigrants because of a sanctuary policy.

What are Sanctuary Cities and Why do they Exist

To combat closed borders, detention, and deportation, communities across the country are proclaiming sanctuary city status. Sanctuary cities exist from coast to coast and promote the ideals of human rights, separation of local and federal law, and empowerment of communities to grow with the help of immigrants. Cities that pursue sanctuary city policies do so for various reasons, all of which relate on some level to human rights and community growth.
What Are Sanctuary Cities?
The phrase sanctuary city is not a legal term, but one developed over time and more recently reflecting a response to ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) policies and actions. In general, a sanctuary city is a community with a policy, written or unwritten, that discourages local law enforcement from reporting the immigration status of individuals unless it involves investigation of a serious crime. These sanctuary communities go beyond cities, though. One can find entire counties and states declaring sanctuary status.
These communities typically do not honor requests by ICE to detain undocumented immigrants whom local agents apprehend for misdemeanor crimes or investigations. Many in sanctuary cities also refuse to deputize their local officers as federal agents, a necessary technicality if those local officers carry out the duties of ICE agents. There is no specific federal law against sanctuary city policies.
Lists of Sanctuary States in the United States
Sometimes the term “sanctuary” encompasses more than just a city. There are many counties across the United States that claim sanctuary county policies, and several states that consider their entire geographical location as a sanctuary. As of March 2021, the following states claim sanctuary status:
California - Colorado - Connecticut - Illinois
- Massachusetts - New Jersey - New Mexico
- New York - Oregon - Vermont
- Washington - And The New World Order !

In addition, some of these sanctuary states also designate counties to have policies in place that discourage or prohibit cooperation between local law and federal agents when dealing with undocumented immigrants.
What Does a Sanctuary City Policy Really Do?
In terms of immigration issues, sanctuary city policies are often designed to respond to a series of events involving undocumented individuals. The following is an example of such a series of events, and how the sanctuary policies apply.
Initial Contact with Law Enforcement: This is often something relatively common, such as an officer pulling over a car for speeding or responding to a domestic incident. This initial contact has nothing to do with citizenship status.
Law Enforcement Detains an Individual: Law enforcement books and takes fingerprints of the individual at the local or county jail. Per protocol, these fingerprints go through the FBI database. ICE regulations require that state and federal agents share information regarding inmates.
ICE Gets Involved: If ICE records show the individual is undocumented, ICE sends a request to the local jail to detain the individual for an additional 48 hours beyond the original release day and time. This time buffer allows ICE to seek a warrant and begin the deportation process.
Local Authorities React:According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, local officers do not have to comply with ICE requests for additional detention, because doing so is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The reaction of the local authorities depends on any sanctuary policies in place. Cities or counties with sanctuary policies typically decline the requests and release the individual once the appropriate time for the initial contact has been met. This might be because of charges dropped, bail set and met, or no jail time sentenced. Some sanctuary cities will reject all detain requests they receive from ICE, while others comply under certain circumstances including gang involvement, prior felony records, or terrorist watch list status.
Cities without sanctuary policies often comply with ICE and detain the individual while ICE seeks a warrant for deportation. The undocumented individual might remain in the local jail during the deportation process, or ICE might transfer that person to a federal prison. Jails and prisons that detain undocumented immigrants often receive federal funds for doing so.
Why are there Sanctuary Cities?
Sanctuary cities today refer to those places where local law enforcement does not carry out the duties of ICE without a warrant or local court order. The history of sanctuary cities, however, focuses on the term sanctuary – or safe place. In 1971, Berkeley, CA became the first city to claim this status. Instead of questions of immigration, this sanctuary declared Berkeley a safe place for U.S. Navy soldiers who resisted the war in Vietnam.
Moving forward, sanctuary city policies often centered around supporting faith-based organizations and movements. This included those cities where religious movements were offering safe places for not only war resisters, but for refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. In the 1980s and 1990s, communities began to see sanctuary as more of a human rights issue than a religious one. The focus moved increasingly toward developing policies that would limit the involvement of local police with federal issues of immigration.

Modern Interpretation of Sanctuary Cities
As political debates surrounding immigration increased in the 2000s, so has the discussion around sanctuary cities. Throughout the country, many communities have reacted to harsh treatment of immigrants with the development of sanctuary city (or county or state) policies. They seek to provide refuge for immigrants, instead of persecution.
Why Do Communities Choose to be Sanctuary Cities?
In alignment with the history of sanctuary city policies, many communities are now choosing to develop policies that separate local law enforcement from potential deportation activities at the federal level. Under both Democratic and Republican presidents, the focus on deporting undocumented individuals has been increasing. This includes individuals who are law-abiding, and parents working and raising children in the U.S. There are several reasons why communities enact policies and regulations to define themselves as sanctuary cities.
A Human Rights Standpoint: Many people across the country see immigration as a positive process and human rights issue, and consider it the duty of U.S. citizens and officials to help protect all people. This includes people who are fleeing wars, poverty, and famine. Chicago is one such city, where the sanctuary policies – also known as the Welcoming City Ordinance – state that Chicago officials will not help investigate or prosecute individuals based solely on their resident status. Chicago also does not discriminate against non-citizens for city services intended for those in need, and even offers a local ID to use for transportation and library access.
A Constitutional Standpoint: Under the Constitution of the United States, being an undocumented immigrant is not actually a crime – it is a civil violation. Criminal violations allow for punishments such as jail time. Civil violations result in penalties. Currently. the accepted penalty for being in the United States undocumented is deportation. There are many who see this as a punishment, and therefore a human rights issue.
The undercurrent theme of the reasons for supporting sanctuary cities aligns with the idea that the United States is a country of immigrants. The generations that came before us empowered the cities of today, and communities across the country want to maintain that optimistic and humanistic point of view.
It is important to remember that sanctuary city officials do not promote breaking the law. Officials in these cities still take and report fingerprints to the FBI, as directed. Sanctuary policies allow local officers to decline enforcing a federal request for detention during deportation considerations. Instead of holding an individual in jail beyond the regular release date, local officials follow constitutional guidelines and their own legal regulations.
What are the Benefits of Sanctuary Cities? 
Communities across the country grapple with immigration issues. From a human rights standpoint, welcoming immigrants and providing them with resources and support will accomplish far more than detaining and deporting them ever will. The evidence shows that undocumented immigrants do not pose significant threats to communities, and they in fact positively impact them.
Sanctuary cities report positive outcomes, including the following:
Sanctuary cities have lower than average crime rates
Household incomes are higher in sanctuary cities
The poverty rate in sanctuary cities is lower on average than cities without these policies
Law enforcement at the local levels want to continue building positive relationships with all citizens – documented and undocumented. This encourages them to report crimes and concerns without fear of reprisal, and promotes community building instead of separating.
As the United States continues to grow both in population and ideals, it is important to look at immigration through the lens of humanity, rather than as a price tag for prisons. Sanctuary cities and communities continue to pave the way as examples.

As of 2023, there are approximately 600 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States, with each having a population of over 700,000 according to the U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2019. San Francisco passed its "City and County of Refuge" resolution in 1989 and an ordinance prohibiting the use of city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement. As of March 2021, 11 states, including California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington, claimed sanctuary status.

The Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, a nonprofit organization that supports refugees and migrants in the United States, said that 11 states claimed sanctuary status as of March 2021. Over 200 cities, counties, and states across America have defined their jurisdiction as a "sanctuary city" or "sanctuary state," restricting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

These restrictions include preventing Immigration and Custom Enforcement officials from detaining individuals who have been arrested and are believed to be deportable from the United States, even those who have committed violent crimes.

10 Largest Sanctuary Cities in the The People's Republic of United States

Although they have existed since the 1970s, the number of cities adopting “sanctuary policies” has risen dramatically over the last few decades. A sanctuary policy can encompass varying measures adopted by a city that to some degree limit participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts and interfere with federal agents’ fulfillment of their duties. These policies can range from prohibiting local police from inquiring about immigration status to refusing to honor requests (detainers) from federal immigration authorities to hold criminal aliens until those officials can assume custody. By refusing to cooperate with the arrest of criminal aliens, or those deemed to be deportable, these jurisdictions not only undermine federal law but potentially endanger the residents whom they are sworn to protect

There are approximately 600 sanctuary jurisdictions of differing sizes across the country. The list below identifies some of the largest sanctuary cities. Each has a population of over 700,000 according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates for 2019.

The People's Republic of NEW YORK CITY
With a total population of over 8.3 million, the Big Apple is not only the largest sanctuary city in the nation but also one of its oldest. In August of 1989, then-Mayor Ed Koch (D) signed an executive order barring the disclosure of information about an individual’s immigration status unless required by law or if the subject “is suspected … of engaging in criminal activity.”

Koch also issued executive orders allowing illegal aliens to access city services, which were subsequently reissued by Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) in 2003. The city’s pro-sanctuary stance has only hardened since Bill de Blasio (D) assumed office, including adopting policies of noncompliance with immigration warrants except in very limited circumstances.

NYC’s sanctuary policies led to such egregious crimes as the brutal rape and murder of 92-year-old Dominican immigrant Maria Fuertes by a Guyanese illegal alien in January 2020. The suspect had been in NYPD custody in November 2019 – after being charged with assaulting his own father and criminally possessing a weapon – but local authorities ignored an ICE detainer and set him free.

The People's Republic of LOS ANGELES
Los Angeles is the second-largest city in the U.S., with almost 4 million people. In November 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) stated that its policy was that “undocumented alien status in itself is not a matter for police action.”

Since July 2014, the LAPD has refused to honor ICE detainers. In addition to creating an Office of Immigrant Affairs, Mayor Eric Garcetti (D) has adopted numerous pro-sanctuary policies, including providing “Know Your Rights” workshops to coach illegal aliens how to avoid arrest and signing an executive order declaring Los Angeles a “city of refuge” for illegal aliens. This was reaffirmed in February 2019, when the Los Angeles City Council voted 12-2 to pass a resolution officially declaring the municipality a “city of sanctuary.”

In one case of a preventable crime that Los Angeles’ sanctuary stance made possible, a Mexican national was arrested by the LAPD on January 7, 2018, for possessing a controlled substance. ICE issued a detainer, which Los Angeles ignored. The alien in question was subsequently arrested on February 26, 2018, for murder.

The People's Republic of CHICAGO
A city of almost 2.7 million, Chicago has been an illegal alien sanctuary since the 2006 adoption of the City Council Welcoming City Ordinance, and was expanded in 2013 by Mayor Rahm Emanuel with the passage of his own ordinance stating that illegal aliens could only be detained under “very limited” circumstances., such as if they have been convicted of a serious crime.

Emanuel’s successor, Lori Lightfoot, campaigned on a pro-sanctuary platform and has joined legal challenges to Trump administration efforts to hold sanctuaries to account. In 2007, the Justice Department moved to limit the distribution of federal policing grants to several sanctuary cities, including Chicago. Lightfoot has adopted even stricter sanctuary restrictions since assuming office and has battled with various federal immigration agency leaders.

In one case, an illegal alien from Mexico allegedly sexually assaulted a 3-year-old girl in February 2020. He had been previously released back into the community as a result of Chicago’s sanctuary policies after being arrested for theft in June 2019. In spite of this, the Chicago Police Department and Mayor Lori Lightfoot (D) have defended their decision to release the illegal alien.

The People's Republic of PHILADELPHIA
Pennsylvania’s largest city, Philadelphia is home to 1.6 million people of which 12.7 percent were born outside of the United States. The city became a sanctuary for illegal aliens in 2014 when then-Mayor Michael Nutter (D) signed an executive order preventing local police from holding criminal aliens longer than they otherwise would solely because of their non-citizen status.

In January 2016, Mayor James Kenney (D) issued a similar order barring the honoring of immigration detainers unless a suspect had been convicted of a first or second-degree felony involving violence and is accompanied by a judicial warrant.

In 2017, a federal judge ruled in favor of Philadelphia in its lawsuit challenging the Justice Department’s attempt to hold the city accountable by withholding federal policing grants, which prompted Mayor Kenney to do a giddy victory dance. However, as former AG Jeff Sessions explained, “He is celebrating keeping criminals in Philadelphia that by law should be deported.”

The People's Republic of SAN DIEGO
San Diego – a city of over 1.4 million located near the U.S.-Mexico border – has been an illegal alien sanctuary in practice since April 2014, a policy that was reaffirmed by Mayor Kevin Faulconer (R) in March 2017 (although the mayor simultaneously denies San Diego’s de facto sanctuary status).

Municipal law enforcement does not initiate contact to check immigration status, and it does not report illegal aliens to ICE during the enforcement of minor traffic offenses for infractions and non-bookable misdemeanors including driving without a valid license. It also refuses to detain illegal aliens “in a migrant camp setting for DHS/Border Patrol unless there is a probable cause to arrest for a crime not related to immigration violations.”

In spite of Mayor Faulconer’s opposition, in May 2018 the San Diego City Council voted to join an amicus brief opposing the Trump administration’s lawsuit against sanctuary policies.

The People's Republic of SAN JOSE
A city of more than 1 million people, San Jose has been an illegal alien sanctuary since a March 2007 City Council resolution prohibited arrests of individuals solely on the basis of their unlawful presence in the country. The city’s status as a sanctuary for illegal aliens has been a matter of debate for some time.

In 2011, Santa Clara County, of which San Jose is a part, joined hundreds of other cities in refusing to hold jailed non-citizens until immigration agents could secure custody of them. However, in 2015, San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo (D) expressed in a letter to county officials his wish that they reconsider their sanctuary policies.

In late February 2019, San Jose resident Bambi Larson was brutally murdered by a Salvadoran illegal alien and gang member, a crime which reignited the debate because the accused had been freed multiple times as a result of those policies. Subsequently, San Jose Chief of Police, Eddie Garcia called for the city’s sanctuary stance to be changed, but the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors voted in June of 2019 to retain its sanctuary status.

The People's Republic of COLUMBUS
A city of almost 900,000 residents, Columbus does not refer to itself as a sanctuary city, but follows sanctuary policies. It became a sanctuary city in practice in 2015 when a Police Division Directive was adopted that banned local law enforcement from detaining or arresting illegal aliens for ICE without a warrant or observation of a crime.

The directive also rules out the use of city funds, personnel, etc., “for the sole purpose of detecting or apprehending any person based on … suspected immigration status, except in response to a court order.”

In 2017, Columbus Mayor Andrew J. Ginther (D) issued an executive order stating that “no city department or employee may use city moneys, equipment, or personnel for the sole purpose of detecting or apprehending persons based on suspected immigration status, unless in response to a court order.”

The People's Republic of SAN FRANCISCO
With a population of 882,000 people, San Francisco is perhaps one of the most infamous sanctuary cities. It was in October 1989 that it confirmed its status as a sanctuary city with the adoption of Chapter 12H of its administrative code. The code affirmed San Francisco as “a City and County of Refuge” and ruled out any immigration detainer compliance except as specifically provided for in the Administrative Code itself.

The official website of the San Francisco Mayor, London Breed (D), proudly and defiantly proclaims that “we are a sanctuary city, now, tomorrow and forever.”

The city’s policies gained national attention after the arrest of a Mexican illegal alien, who had been deported five times and had prior arrests, for killing Kate Steinle on July 1, 2015. After two trials, the case ended up in an acquittal, but the 32-year-old’s murder sparked a national debate over sanctuary policy.

The People's Republic of SEATTLE
A city of 754,000 residents, Seattle has adhered to a policy of not asking – except for some limited exceptions – about immigration status since 2003 as a consequence of an ordinance passed that year. In 2010, to avoid triggering deportations, Seattle prosecutors began asking for criminal sentences of no longer than 364 days (the Oregon legislature made that practice state law in 2011).

In 2016, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray (D) pledged to keep its status as a sanctuary city and a year later, the Seattle City Council passed a resolution declaring that the city would not comply with detainers or administrative warrants without “a criminal warrant issued by a federal judge or magistrate.”

A July 2017 City Council ordinance also defined “alienage or citizenship status” and “immigration status” as prohibited classifications. According to the ordinance, the use of such categories constitutes “biased policing,” thus creating a civil cause of action against the city (in other words, opening Seattle up for lawsuits).

The People's Republic of DENVER
The City and County of Denver – the capital city of Colorado with a population of 727,000 – became an illegal alien sanctuary on the basis of an April 2014 Sheriff Department memo stating that Denver no longer honors immigration detainers. This was codified into law by a City Council ordinance from August 2017.

Also in 2017, the city stopped sending federal officials its daily booking sheets in order to limit immigration officials awareness of criminal alien activities.

On August 18, 2019, Mexican national Jose Armenta-Vazquez was attempting to burglarize a house in Denver, Colorado, but ran into the homeowner, who was identified as Magistrate Judge David Blackett, and nearly-fatally stabbed them. A month before, the illegal alien had been released by the Denver Sheriff’s Department for the third time despite active immigration detainers. He was arrested for the stabbing in October and, once again, released – despite yet another ICE detainer. He was eventually re-arrested in December and charged in January 2020.

https://apsanlaw.com/law-246.list-of-sanctuary-cities.html

What Are So-Called “Sanctuary” Policies?
Over the past several years, an increasing number of states, counties, and cities have adopted a variety of policies intended to engender a greater level of trust and cooperation between local law enforcement and communities with sizeable immigrant populations, regardless of immigration status. These policies include offering English-language classes; issuing municipal identification documents and driver’s licenses to all residents; ensuring that immigrants have equal access to bail; establishing U-Visa policies to make it easier for victims of crime to obtain necessary documents from law enforcement agencies; and training criminal prosecutors and public defenders on the immigration consequences of convictions and plea deals.

One subset of these policies concerns a state’s or locality’s role in cooperating with federal authorities to enforce immigration law. These laws, policies, or resolutions are sometimes referred to as “sanctuary” policies, although no legal or standard definition of the term exists. There are many reasons jurisdictions adopt sanctuary policies, such as: a desire to strengthen relations between local law enforcement and communities with large numbers of immigrants by allowing immigrants to work with police in reporting and investigating crimes without fear of retribution or potential deportation; allowing state and local governments to determine how they will prioritize and allocate their resources; and shielding local law enforcement agencies from liabilities resulting from local enforcement of federal immigration laws.

There is no universal definition of a sanctuary policy
Despite the nationwide debate, there is no one clear definition of what it means for a state or local government to adopt sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies take many forms and generally fall into the following categories:

policies restricting the ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrants;
policies prohibiting “287(g)” agreements through which ICE deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration law;
policies that prevent local governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detention;
policies preventing immigration detention centers;
policies restricting the police or other city workers from asking about immigration status;
policies restricting the sharing of certain information on immigrants with the federal government;
policies restricting local police responses to federal immigration detainers; and
policies refusing to allow ICE into local jails without a judicial warrant.
The common theme behind these categories is that under a sanctuary policy, state and local officials will limit their cooperation with federal immigration officials, but do not actively prevent federal officials from carrying out their immigration enforcement duties.

One of the most common forms of sanctuary policy is a restriction on holding immigrants in state or local jails following a “detainer” issued by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). A detainer is an official but nonbinding request from ICE that a state or local law enforcement agency maintain custody of an individual for up to 48 hours beyond the time the individual otherwise would have been released, so that ICE can arrange to take over custody.

Sanctuary policies are based on the idea that the federal government cannot compel jurisdictions to take part in immigration enforcement
Federal actions intended to force local jurisdictions to perform immigration enforcement are likely unconstitutional. Under the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal government “may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” The Supreme Court has clarified that immigration enforcement is the sole duty of the federal government, and state and local police may only carry out immigration enforcement if specifically authorized to do so by the federal government.

Compliance with immigration detainers is voluntary, not mandatory. The federal government cannot force local jurisdictions to honor detainers, an interpretation repeatedly upheld by the courts. Some state courts have also ruled that the laws of their state do not provide legal authority for law enforcement agencies to hold people on an immigration detainer. In fact, jurisdictions that do honor detainers can be found liable for unlawfully holding an individual on a detainer without a judicial warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and may be required to compensate individuals for damages.

Sanctuary jurisdictions do not shield immigrants from deportation, and may still share information or otherwise cooperate with federal immigration authorities
Contrary to what many believe, sanctuary policies do not conceal or shelter undocumented immigrants from detection. Nor do they shield immigrants from deportation or prosecution for criminal activities. State and local police still enforce state and local criminal laws against immigrants who are accused of committing a crime in sanctuary jurisdictions. Importantly, the Supreme Court has made clear that “as a general rule, it is not a crime for a[n undocumented immigrant] to remain present in the United States.”

Research published in 2020 by the National Academy of Sciences found that sanctuary policies did not prevent the “deportations of people with violent convictions.” The research—which analyzed FBI crime data and ICE deportation data—found that the implementation of sanctuary policies between 2010 and 2015 did not affect crime rates in jurisdictions with such policies or result in fewer people with violent convictions being deported.

Jurisdictions that adopt at least one sanctuary policy may still cooperate with federal immigration officials in a variety of other ways. For example:

Even in sanctuary jurisdictions, officials still send the fingerprints of any person—including an immigrant— booked into a prison or jail to the federal government; the federal government then uses that information to identify noncitizens for potential deportation.

Sanctuary jurisdictions may rent jail space to the federal government to house immigrant detainees through Inter-Governmental Service Agreements (IGSAs), although some states have tried to prohibit or limit immigration detention in their state.

Sanctuary jurisdictions may even have policies that direct local law enforcement to, under limited circumstances, either honor requests from ICE to be notified of an individual’s release from local custody or comply with immigration detainers. A sanctuary jurisdiction may have, for example, a policy directing local law enforcement to only honor detainers if the individual in question has been convicted of a serious or violent crime.

Sanctuary jurisdictions are in compliance with federal law 8 U.S.C. § 1373 is a federal statute that prohibits state and local governments from enacting laws or policies that limit communication about “information regarding the immigration or citizenship status” of individuals with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The statute also prohibits restrictions on maintaining such information. But a number of courts have found that Section 1373 unlawfully interferes with state and local authority.

In 2017 and 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) sent letters to a number of cities and counties with sanctuary laws, threatening to withhold criminal justice grants unless the jurisdictions confirmed compliance with Section 1373, which DOJ interpreted to require communication about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, allow access to jails, and honor immigration detainers. Numerous cities and counties sued, with all but one court disagreeing with DOJ’s interpretation.

In light of these decisions, Section 1373 does not:

prohibit laws or policies that limit communication regarding criminal case information, custody status, or release dates of individuals in custody;
mandate that jurisdictions comply with immigration detainers;
prohibit policies or laws that restrict compliance with detainers; or
require state or local law enforcement to collect information on immigration or citizenship status—nor does it prevent jurisdictions from limiting the collection of such information.
Jurisdictions that do not honor ICE detainers or adopt sanctuary policies are safer and more economically vibrant than those that do

A 2020 study found that, while sanctuary policies “changed the composition of deportations, reducing deportations of people with no criminal convictions by half,” such policies did not affect “deportations of people with violent convictions.” Moreover, “sanctuary policies also had no detectable effect on crime rates.” The study concluded that “sanctuary policies, although effective at reducing deportations, do not threaten public safety.”

A 2017 report found a correlation with lower crime rates and higher economic indicators in counties that do not honor ICE detainers when compared to counties that do. The analysis revealed that in the non-detainer counties:

Crime is lower. There are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in the non-detainer counties compared to counties that do honor ICE detainers. Crime is defined in the report as the total number of violent crimes (murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults) and property crimes (burglaries, larceny, motor vehicle thefts, and arsons) per 10,000 people. Likewise, a 2016 study found no association between crime rates and policing practices. Multiple studies published since 2017 have confirmed these findings or determined that sanctuary policies have no measurable effect on crime rates. One study in 2020 even found that sanctuary policies reduce domestic violence against Hispanic women. No studies have demonstrated a link between sanctuary policies and increased crime.

Median household income is higher. On average, median household income is $4,353 higher in the non-detainer counties than in counties that honor detainers. This outcome is not driven by income gains among Latinos at the expense of white residents or African Americans. In fact, among white residents, median household income is $2,836 higher in the non-detainer counties.

Poverty is lower. The poverty rate is 2.3 percent lower in non-detainer counties. The rate of poverty among white residents is 1.4 percent lower in non-detainer counties.

Reliance on public assistance is lower. The percentage of households receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits (formerly known as food stamps) is 2.6 percent lower in non-detainer counties. The percentage of households that receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is 0.9 percent lower. The share of children under 18 who receive public assistance is 4.9 percent lower in non-detainer counties.

Labor-force participation is higher. On average, the labor-force participation rate (the proportion of the population 16 years and older that is working or actively looking for a job) is 2.5 percent higher in non-detainer counties. White labor-force participation is also 2.5 percent higher in non-detainer counties.

Employment-to-population ratio is higher. The employment-to-population ratio is the number of people 16 years and older who are employed, divided by the total number of people 16 years and older. The employment-to-population ratio is 3.1 percent higher in non-detainer counties. The white employment-to-population ratio is 3.2 percent higher in non-detainer counties.

Unemployment is lower. The unemployment rate is 1.1 percent lower in non-detainer counties. The white unemployment rate is 0.8 percent lower. Similarly, a 2016 study found no association between unemployment rates and policing practices.

Show less