Below is a compilation of information and resources on Trust Act policies. These resources explain why we’ve chosen to campaign for a Trust Act in Montgomery County right now.
- The Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economy(Center for American Progress)
“The data are clear: Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary 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.”
- Providing Sanctuary or Fostering Crime? A Review of the Research on “Sanctuary Cities” and Crime(Sociology Compass, Wiley)
“We subsequently highlight findings from existing empirical research that examines the relationship between the adoption or presence of “sanctuary” policies and crime. The few empirical studies that exist illustrate a “null” or negative relationship between these policies and crime.”
“Ultimately, there is minimal empirical research on the “sanctuary” policies‐crime relationship and the four existing studies yield mixed results. However, none of these studies suggest that limited cooperation policies foster crime. Instead, findings support the maintenance and expansion of limited cooperation policies, at least insofar as they foster positive immigrant community‐police relations and other immigrant political opportunities.”
“Wong (2017) compares the overall violent and property crime rates for demographically matched “sanctuary” and “non‐sanctuary” counties across the United States. … After matching counties and comparing their crime rates, Wong finds that large central metropolitan counties, micropolitan counties, and rural counties with “sanctuary” policies are safer than their “non‐sanctuary” counterparts. However, similarly matched “sanctuary” and “non‐sanctuary” large fringe metropolitan counties, medium metropolitan counties, and small metropolitan counties have crime rates that are not statistically different.”
“Gonzalez et al. (2017) find that “sanctuary” cities do not experience any uniform shift in crime rates in the year following the implementation of a “sanctuary” policy for all three of their outcome measures.”
“Lyons and colleagues find that immigrant concentration is associated with a reduction in neighborhood violence,… However, the authors find that the inverse relationship between neighborhood immigrant concentration and crime is stronger in “sanctuary” cities (municipalities with at least one law or formal resolution limiting local enforcement of immigration laws) compared to “non‐sanctuary” cities.”
“Martínez‐Schuldt and Martínez’s results indicate that cities experience an initial decline in incidents of robbery following the passage of “sanctuary” ordinances, but no changes in homicide. Consistent with Lyons et al.’s (2013) expectations regarding “immigrant political opportunities,” the authors also find that “sanctuary” polices strengthen the inverse relationship between immigrant concentration measures and both homicide and robbery.”
“When cities like Philadelphia, Boston, or San Francisco advertise that they have these (‘sanctuary city’) policies, the criminals take notice,” Sessions said July 12  in Las Vegas. “According to a recent study from the University of California Riverside, cities with these policies have more violent crime on average than those that don’t.”
The study researchers said Sessions ignored additional information in the study.
“Without consulting our paper … yes, the graph does appear to show that crime is higher in sanctuary cities,” Benjamin Gonzalez-O’Brien, one of the authors of the study told PolitiFact. “However, the vertical lines in the figure represent confidence intervals, which capture statistical uncertainty. Basically, the actual crime rate could be anywhere in that range, from the bottom of the vertical line to the top. Because these confidence intervals are large and overlap with those of non-sanctuary cities, it cannot be said that crime rates in sanctuaries are higher than in non-sanctuaries.”
The whole clip is worth watching (6:13), or just watch from 4:35 – 5:07 for the priceless look on the face of a public safety director who cooperates with ICE.
- ICE 287g – https://www.ice.gov/287g
- The Effect of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown, in 3 Maps (CityLab)
Local sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal authorities seem to be blunting the force of the administration’s actions. Areas with greater local limitations on federal immigration cooperation have seen, in general, smaller increases in arrests—even if they have large immigrant populations.
- The Federal Government’s Authority to Impose Conditions on Grant Funds (CRS)
- Fact Sheet on Sanctuary Policies and 8 USC 1373
This brief fact sheet explains the federal statute of 8 USC § 1373 and its relation to policies limiting compliance with immigration detainers or other immigration enforcement assistance by local law enforcement agencies, also called “Sanctuary Policies.” These policies do not generally conflict with 8 USC § 1373 and therefore do not put localities in jeopardy of losing federal funds.
A brief summary of recent court precedents that analyze the limits of the federal government’s power to tell states how to regulate, and what this means for 8 USC § 1373. One court so far has found 8 USC § 1373 unconstitutional [as of July 2018, it is two courts], and others are pending. These cases mean that a key anti-sanctuary weapon of the federal government may be struck down by the courts, and communities may be legally able to stop any communication with ICE and CBP.
Montgomery County’s policy is not to inquire about anyone’s immigration status, nor does the County conduct any immigration enforcement or investigations. We believe that this is the right balance for this County.
Montgomery County is not a “sanctuary” jurisdiction. Local police and the Department of Correction and Rehabilitation work cooperatively with ICE in their work on immigration and customs violations and drug and human trafficking. The County’s arrest and detention information goes to the State and all State information is accessed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through their Secure Communities initiative.
Montgomery County believes that no deportations should take place without ensuring that the person to be deported received adequate representation and due process of law under the Constitution. The Montgomery County Police Department will play no role in enforcing federal immigration law. County residents should never be afraid to seek help from our public safety officers.
MCPS staff will not release any student information, unless required by law.
MCPS does not require students or their families to provide any information to school staff about their immigration status.
According to guidance from the National Education Association (NEA) and the National School Boards Association (NSBA), “school districts are not required to report undocumented students to ICE …”
- Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law: Legal Guidance for Maryland State and Local Law Enforcement Officials (Maryland Office of the Attorney General)
- LEAs face potential liability exposure if they seek to enforce federal
immigration laws, particularly if they do so outside the context of a federal
cooperation agreement under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1).
- LEAs must absorb all costs associated with federal cooperation
agreements under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1). The federal government does
not provide reimbursement for these agreements, and the agreements may
increase the risk of unconstitutional profiling.
- LEAs face potential liability exposure if they honor ICE or CBP
detainer requests unless the request is accompanied by a judicial warrant or
supported by information providing probable cause that the subject of the
detainer has committed a crime.
- State and local officers may not be prohibited from sharing
information about a detainee’s citizenship or immigration status with
federal immigration officials, but they are not required to do so either.
- As an overriding principle, the government bears the burden of
proving that the detention of someone beyond the person’s State-law release
date does not violate the Fourth Amendment and its Maryland counterpart.
Any questions on the above? Contact email@example.com.