Immigration has emerged as a contentious issue in the upcoming presidential elections in the United States. But debates focusing on border security and deportations obscure a more complex reality. Do local governments always perceive immigration as a crisis to be averted or managed? A recent book edited by Laurent Faret and Hilary Sanders shows that policies aiming to protect migrants’ access to rights and services have existed for decades, and continue to evolve in response to changing conditions.

There are some 10-11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States today, the majority for over a decade. Despite national policies that offer few opportunities for legalization and citizenship, many local governments have chosen to treat the undocumented immigrants inhabiting their cities as residents, rather than as foreigners. The most protective policies exist in large cities like New York, Chicago, and in the state of California, territories that contain some of the largest immigrant populations in the country.

---

---

In the federal system that characterizes the United States, although immigration is regulated at the national level, local governments have considerable latitude in enacting the policies that determine migrants’ “right to the city” (Lefebvre 1968). Indeed, it is primarily the states, not the federal government, that are responsible for providing services in health, education, and public security to its residents. In this context, and within the legal framework that state governments create, municipal governments  that choose to support immigrant populations mainly do so in two ways. First, sincelocal police forces are separate from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the national agency that regulates immigration, limits can be established on communication and collaboration with federal agents seeking to locate deportable migrants. The goal in this case is to promote public safety by allowing undocumented immigrants to inform the police when they are victims or witnesses of a crime, without risk of deportation. Many of these municipal policies were first established in solidarity with the Sanctuary movement in defense of Central American refugees during the 1980s, leading to the term “sanctuary cities”. At different periods, this indeterminate political label has been used either to highlight city governments’ humanitarian motivations, or to criticize their creation of “safe havens” for undocumented immigrants.

Second, local governments can choose to put resources into programs that help to improve immigrants’ access to municipal services. One strategy is to offer translation and interpretation services, to ensure that non-English speaking residents are fully informed and can communicate with staff in municipal hospitals and in the school system, for example. In some cities, local offices inform immigrants of their rights with updated information and organize cultural events for the international community. Finally, the distribution of municipal ID cards gives undocumented immigrants a way to identify themselves to the police, banks, and other institutions.

New York City at the avant-garde of migrant protection

New York City, one of the country’s original sanctuary cities, illustrates both strategies of migrant protection. Since the 1980s, the municipal government has instructed its employees, including police officers, to refrain from sharing information with federal authorities about immigrants’ legal status. The city council also passed legislation in 2003 mandating the translation of all municipal documents into the six foreign languages most widely spoken by residents. Finally, its Mayor’s Office for Immigrant Affairs, the oldest and most generously funded and staffed among such offices nation-wide, has overseen the largest municipal ID program available to undocumented residents in the country since 2016.

The status of New York City as a sanctuary city was further strengthened during the second term of the Obama presidency; the municipal government, like those of many other cities in the United States, began to refuse to hold arrested immigrants in jail at the request of federal immigration authorities hoping to interrogate and possibly deport them. As a result, deportations from these cities began to drop significantly. New York City later became the target of a nation-wide crackdown on sanctuary cities during the presidency of Donald Trump, whose candidacy was propelled by proposals for harsher immigration policies. Within days in office, the new administration passed executive orders authorizing increased raids of federal immigration agents within workplaces and in public space, including in and around courtrooms.

The reaction of New York City’s municipal government to this crackdown followed a national trend of decreased cooperation with federal immigration authorities during the Trump presidency. Since nothing can prevent federal agents from conducting investigations in public space, city authorities tried to reduce undocumented immigrants’ vulnerability to deportation. They expanded programs offering free legal aid to immigrants, helping them regularize their status or apply for asylum, for example. Each year the Mayor’s Office for Immigrant Affairs also organized hundreds of community meetings to inform immigrant populations of their rights and to offer strategies to prevent or limit interactions with federal immigration agents.

The research also argues that criminal justice reforms passed in New York City and a number of other left-leaning cities also indirectly benefitted undocumented immigrant residents by reducing the chances for all city residents to come into contact with the police or the court system. Indeed, the decriminalization of minor “quality of life” offenses, such as loitering or public intoxication,  allowed police officers to issue a fine that can be paid through community service, rather than to arrest offenders and require a court appearance These reforms are significant for undocumented immigrants, since police searches in the FBI database for criminal records, and public appearances in criminal court remain the primary means by which federal immigration agents identify deportable migrants. These structural changes, originally intended to reduce the disproportionate arrest of communities of color for low-leveloffenses, have thus reduced the federal government’s ability to deport undocumented immigrants.

Immigrant-friendly policies in the Southwest

Two other case studies show examples of cities in the United States that offer varying levels of protection and services for immigrants, within states controlled by a Republican party that is increasingly hostile to immigration. As James Cohen recounts in his chapter on Tucson, Arizona, the Democratic leaders of this city have struggled to effectively oppose a state law passed in 2010 that allows police officers to conduct identity checks of individuals suspected of being undocumented. In this cradle of the original Sanctuary movement, the municipal government has managed to maintain limits on police questioning in regards to immigration status. However, fear of lawsuits from the state government have prevented the adoption of stronger protections.

Austin, Texas is another example of a Democratic-controlled city within a Republican state, whose governor and legislature went so far as to ban all sanctuary policies in 2017. The chapter by Rocio Castillo shows that successive municipal governments have oscillated between efforts to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation and compliance with state and federal immigration policies. Nonetheless, city leaders have attempted to brand the city as “immigrant-friendly”, through symbolic declarations and “welcoming initiatives” designed for English-speaking immigrants new to the city. As in many cities, government and business elites see the advantage of a communication strategy that appeals to the “creative class” of highly educated workers with cosmopolitan values.

A polarizing issue

The study also shows the specificity of welcoming policies in the United States in the context of the Americas. Despite the existence of federal systems throughout North and South America that allow for local autonomy in many policy domains, initiatives in favor of immigrants in Canada and in Latin America mainly consist of non-controversial programs to deliver aid and promote integration, such as information offices and language classes. Sanctuary cities in the United States, on the other hand, maintain a uniquely conflictual relationship with the federal government. Disagreements about the proper role of cities, counties and states in the identification of deportable migrants often extend to the federal courts, which tend to side with local governments with sanctuary policies.

The United States is also characterized by an extraordinary degree of political polarization around the subject of immigration. In the nation’s two-party system, hostility towards immigration has become a defining issue for Republicans, whereas support for immigrants, and immigrants themselves, are concentrated in cities controlled by the Democratic party. Although their numbers are growing, foreign-born residents of rural states have not yet significantly influenced electoral outcomes; immigrants lacking citizenship cannot vote, and loyalty to the Democratic party among those who are naturalized is not automatic. As a result, the partisan divide on this question corresponds closely to a rural-urban divide, further exacerbating political tensions. Moreover, since the populations of rural counties are over-represented in state legislatures, and those of rural states over-represented in the Electoral College that determines the outcome of presidential elections, opposition to immigration is disproportionately represented on both the state and the federal level.

Migrant Protection and the City in the Americas shows that progressive local governments in the United States have proven innovative and resourceful in adapting to immigration, despite fluctuating policies on the national level. But to what extent can cities truly protect immigrants at risk of deportation by the federal government? How can they prevent isolation and exploitation resulting from migrants’ vulnerable position? The book highlights both the institutional complexity surrounding this issue, in the United States and throughout the Americas, and the limits of local governments’ power to significantly improve conditions for members of society who are excluded from the benefits of citizenship and legal status.

---

---

• Flaticon.com : Freepik
• Freepik.com : noomtah / graphicmal / Eucalyp

 

Retrouvez d’autres articles dans la rubrique Politique

---

---