The Problem Starts in Washington
Every debate about "sanctuary" policies has to begin with a blunt fact: if undocumented immigrants are inside the United States, that is a federal problem created at the federal level.
Congress is responsible for immigration law. The federal government is responsible for securing the borders and tracking visa overstays. And yet, for decades, Congress has failed to act. By the time someone is living in Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York without legal status, the "failure" has already occurred. Cities and states didn't let them in — Washington did.
The Federal Job vs. The Local Job with respect to Immigration
The Constitution draws a bright line:
Federal Government: controls immigration and border enforcement.
States and Cities: are responsible for enforcing their own laws and protecting local public safety, and are expressly forbidden to enforce borders and immigration.
This separation is part of the Constitution called federalism. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. Local police cannot be conscripted into enforcing federal immigration law, because the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine forbids it.
The Sanctuary Idea
A "sanctuary" city or state is not a place where immigration law is suspended. These policies vary widely, from limiting cooperation with federal detainer requests to prohibiting local police from inquiring about immigration status during routine stops. But all share a common principle: local government saying:
"In order to carry out our mission to maintain public safety, we cannot be seen as local immigration officers—because that undermines our core mission."
Local law enforcement should not interfere with federal immigration enforcement, but they should not be forced to participate either. This includes local courts—for example, they are not required to notify federal ICE when someone who might also have immigration violations is being released.
This distinction matters. Sanctuary policies are not about shielding people from federal law. They are about ensuring local police can focus on public safety. People have to know that police will not arrest them for immigration violations — because otherwise they will hide from law enforcement and refuse to report crimes, serve as witnesses, or cooperate with investigations for fear of immigration arrest.
If undocumented residents fear that calling 911 will lead to deportation, they will stay silent. That silence protects abusers, traffickers, and gangs while making entire neighborhoods less safe. Trust, not fear, is the foundation of effective policing.
There are reasonable arguments on both sides of this approach. Some communities prioritize maximum cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, believing it serves broader public safety goals. Others prioritize community policing strategies that require immigrant trust and cooperation. But under our federal system, it's up to each state and locality to make that strategic choice based on their specific circumstances and values.
Federalism, Flipped
Here's the irony: the same political voices that champion "states' rights" on guns, schools, and healthcare often demand federal supremacy when it comes to immigration enforcement. The same politicians who defend states' refusal to enforce federal gun restrictions demand that states enforce federal immigration law. But consistent federalism would respect sanctuary policies. They are not defiance; they are federalism in action — states deciding how best to enforce state and local laws and ensure public safety. It's up to each state and city how this is best served, and different localities have different approaches.
The Bottom Line
Sanctuary states and cities exist because Congress has failed and Washington has stumbled. They are not perfect, but they are a rational response to a reality that local leaders did not create. Federal law is still enforceable everywhere. The question is whether local police should take on responsibilities that actively undermine their ability to protect their communities.
Sanctuary policies answer: no. And under the Constitution, that's a respectable — even principled — position.
This question of sanctuary states is frequently politicized as some kind of being weak on crime and public safety. It has nothing to do with that. Sanctuary states and cities believe that being dragged into immigration enforcement weakens public safety, and under federalism that is their prerogative.