![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Acvgsu. Peer reviewers:
Lkelleygsu,
RBThom.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
SeyeongMin,
Josemgonz95. Peer reviewers:
SeyeongMin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Danelyford.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is pure propaganda. But then, this is the absurd Wikipedia.
The following was removed:
A sanctuary city is a United States city that follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These practices can be explicit, or de jure, or they can be implicit, or de facto. The city is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation; in short, such a city does not enforce immigration law.
This is appropriate text. It addresses in formal language the practices that involve government officials' "looking the other way" (de facto) about illegal immigration, and formal declarations of non-cooperation with federal law (de jure). Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This section,
"Critics have argued that a large proportion of violent crimes in some sanctuary cities result from this policy. 95% of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants (as half of the outstanding arrest warrants in Los Angeles are for Mexican nationals who have fled the country, and hence cannot be arrested here).[4] (These data originate from a Center for Immigration Studies report which relied on data from a confidential California Department of Justice study.[5]) Two-thirds of felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants. Critics additionally argue that the policy provides a refuge for international gangs such as the MS-13 gang.[6]"
seems completely made up. The sources cited do not substatiate these absurd claims. Furthermore, what difference does it make if in one city a very high percentage of feloy warrants are for illegal immigrants? It would only matter if that was true in every "sactuary city." Lastly, what types of felony warrants were being issued? Were the warrants issued for illegal immigration or for nother crimes? This is an important question because the argument seems to be that illegal immigrants are committing a lot of crimes beyond just being in the country illegally. But if most of those warrants are just for being in the country illegally then illegal immigration does not appear nearly so damaging to the social fabric as it does if illegal immigrants are responsible for most of the crimes committed in cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.92.254 ( talk) 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also point out that the assertion is spurious because warrants become outstanding if the authorities chase their suspects out of the country, and hence out of reach. The entire section is overly and overtly alarmist. Fifth Rider ( talk) 21:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The following was removed to due to misrepresentation of cited material and for lack of citation to support included statistics: , citing one study showing that nearly half of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants. [1] Two-thirds of felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants. citation needed 76.202.75.206 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
References
An editor had removed a reference that linked to an article regarding the recent execution-style murder of three young women in Newark: Illegal Immigration an Issue in Newark Murders -- 08/13/2007. Of course, citizens commit murders. The concern is that the prime suspect had a long felony rap sheet, and he was an illegal alien. Community members and elected officials, e.g., Councilman Ron Rice, have expressed concern that if there were coordination between local law enforcement and federal authorities, this crime could have been prevented. Much of the activity of police is crime prevention, not merely pursuit of possible perpetrators of crimes. Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The following text was removed (-which also contained references to the murdered police and sheriffs, including among others: Ronald Johnson, Saul Gallego, David March):
Illegal aliens have been implicated in the killings of police and sheriffs during routine traffic stops. [1]
Again, it is true that citizens also murder police. The point is: these murders could have been avoided if the individuals in question were not in the United States, sheltered by sanctuary policies in so many cities. Dogru144 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
References
Is this term even used outside the United States? If not than I don't see how it could have a more international worldview. - LtNOWIS 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard that this term is a Neologism recently coined for this election. Does anyone know the origin of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.39.219 ( talk) 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Working on it. I first got wind of it today; NPR used it somewhere around 3 times in as many minutes. I believe it was Mitt Romney using it. I would go poking around in transcripts of recent Republican stump speeches if I had time. I have a feeling that this is a new GOP dysphemism. Fifth Rider ( talk) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In the section titled United States, there are at least 5 sentences which start with a phrase such as "Critics have argued", with a number of others starting with the names of specific critics or something like "They contend", where "they" means "critics". Yet, every attempt to insert a single sentence starting with "Proponents of such policies argue" gets reverted with a claim of POV pushing in the edit summary. Why is this? Is there some wikipedia rule about not starting a sentence with the letter "P". -- Ramsey2006 11:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The following was the result of an anonymous editor editing a comment higher up on this talk page. It is unclear whether it was intended to be a talk page comment or an edit to the article (which the edit summary would seem to suggest), but I have reverted the talk page edit and am instead placing the edited comment as a (presumably) proposed alternative opening sentence here. -- Ramsey2006 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the following text from the lead because of formatting issues, and because it made uncited assertions about the definition. Can it be rephrased so that it fits in the article?
The city is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation. A sanctuary city is not a place for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation but is rather a city that simply dictates the role of the local governing body and its employees. The term sanctuary is somewhat of a misnomer as the policies do not interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws and protect immigrants from deportation. -- SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is not semantics or minor details. The issue here is that the article itself must be about the nature and history of a political buzzword and not either a discussion of the policy it describes or a rant from either side. The article needs a new history section to explain the origin of the term. The article uses the buzzword as if it was a generally accepted academic term. The article clearly favors one side of the discussion over another, and cites unreliable and likely biased sources as it does so. I think we all need to calm down and find sources that describe the term and not the policy or arguments on either side. Encyclopedias are meant to inform, not convince. See WP:REDFLAG Fifth Rider ( talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sources are from right wing blogs, including at least one that appears to be passing on rumors. Munchausen1000 ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Oh, dear. The phrase "The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding" is pure propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.116.165 ( talk) 20:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Criminal Law: U.S. states that harboring criminals is a criminal offense. Those harboring illegal aliens, which are criminals under US law (Don't like that hard cold fact, change the laws)are also criminals. Read a law book or two about
This kind of criminal behavior perpetrated by illegal aliens and political allies is what is pissing decent, hard working people off. I've seen this on FOX News, and on the New World Order News Network, other networks. A guy in San Francisco was murdered, along with his family by a gangbanger who was also a illegal alien. What is left of his family may sue the city on those charges, related charges. Can someone keep a eye on this? IF they do sue and win, a lot of bigwigs will be going to Club FED and/or get financially ruined. This could also affect this article as well. 65.173.104.138 ( talk) 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Madison Wisconsin needs to be added to the list of Sanctuary Cities.
Is this still correct? There was legislation that was voted on last year (March 2008) regarding funding for "sanctuary cities"... doesn't this mean that they must be legally defined somehow? Cfirst ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
Listing specific cherry-picked anecdotes of horrific crimes is probably inappropriate anywhere in this article-- it is a case of the exception fitting the rule. There are certainly individual stories of the positive effects of Sanctuary cities.
The little mention of an MS-13 member certainly doesn't belong in a section about "Political Action". Each other paragraph talks about the actions of a politician or political group.
Why were certain entries removed?
ALL of these incidents were the results of sanctuary cities NOT enforcing immigration laws:
I'd really like to know why. I can post more evidence if more is needed.
If there is no response(s) by the end of 21 April I will re-post the entries. Zukabovich ( talk) 22:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
He said such a role would hurt relationships with what he called “the most marginalized and vulnerable people within our community.” - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/nyregion/19newark.html?ref=nyregion
Can the two removed entries be listed now? Zukabovich ( talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This was the only entry on the talk page for the article "Don't ask (immigration policy)" which was merged with this page
This is the first comment in the talk page. The Don't ask policy and the Sanctuary city policy appear to be one in the same. The Sanctuary city article is is better sourced and has more information. The way I figure things it would be for the best to take and extra content from the Don't ask article, move it over to the Sanctuary city article and leave a redirect just in case. - Schrandit ( talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this legal theory seem to be closely related to Senator Calhoun's Doctrine of Nullification? I mean, Senator Calhoun said that if the feds passed a law the state didn't like, the state could get a convention together and nullify it in that state. Aren't the city officials in sanctuary cities saying, "We don't like the feds law, we're going to ignore it?" Samcan ( talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree and think a reference to Nullification is warranted for the page. It's a shame that somehow that would now be considered vandalism, according to the page. And to think I actually contributed to Wikipedia monetarily in the past. Havequick99 ( talk) 21:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so I know nothing about Wikipedia, but I know the topics of sanctuary cities and nullification are linked. I read through the help pages to see what the process is for protection and unprotecting pages. I can see why this article would be protected. But I see no way of contacting the editor responsible since I cannot see a history of the page. I'd like to add in a reference to the nullification page if only to show that the establishment of a sanctuary city is de facto nullification of existing US federal law - the city governments listed have decided not to enforce federal law. Havequick99 ( talk) 21:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The information in the article supports only one point of view, that is, sanctuary policies have caused increased crime due to the fact that illegal immigrants are so predisposed. That is bullshit. This is a piss poor wiki article 15:32 26 Dec 2009
The line "The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society" should be removed. It is using generic, favourable vocabulary and descriptions to portray a particular political viewpoint on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg hill ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Might we want to remove Phoenix from the map? Butros (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
How does this even work? The police always ask for identification when detaining someone or asking questions. An illegal will not have proper identification. Therefore the illegal status is indirectly discovered (when that wasn't the original intent). - 70.233.148.177 ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
one example: local ID cards http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-11-28/opinion/17267855_1_illegal-immigration-id-cards-cards-as-valid-identification 134.155.248.57 ( talk) 12:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it also tolerated to work in a sanctuary city? Or is only tolerated to stay there? 134.155.248.57 ( talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is incredibly one sided to the point that it reads like propaganda from one side of the immigration debate.
A couple of obvious points. Obviously, if cities are choosing to become "Sanctuary Cities" as this article alleges, there is support from their residents and politicians. Yet this article doesn't mention a single reason why many Americans living these cities would want their city to enact these policies. There is no mention of the negative impact of immigration enforcement by local police has on communities (including US citizens). There is no mention of the concern of racial profiling (which is predominant in any serious discussion on this topic). There is no mention of the significant opposition from law enforcement groups to immigration enforcement by local police officials.
The list of crimes at the bottom is ridiculous propaganda. As the saying goes, data is not the plural of anecdote and there is research to show that the destruction of trust between mixed immigrant communities and local law enforcement increases crime (not to mention the increased vulnerability in cases of domestic violence and domestic slavery).
This article is blatantly one-sided to the point of being anti-immigrant propaganda. When I have time, I suppose I could add the other side of the argument to at least make it a little less biased. But I am not sure if this article should even exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physteacher ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
See this: [2]. Refers to an academic study. Also, it is a literature review, not a primary study. Miradre ( talk) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) This should also be added: "A major reason for sanctuary city policies is a claimed "Chilling effect" where reporting illegal aliens would harm relations with immigrants. However, there are no research that have found support for such an effect and immigrants themselves report this to be a minor concern when deciding to report crime or not, compared to language problems and fear of the criminals." Miradre ( talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is an interesting report: [3]. Will add it with some text tomorrow. Miradre ( talk) 19:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/
http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/sheffield
etc
-- Über-Blick ( talk) 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Recent pingpong edits have added and deleted content regarding the Mobilizing against Sanctuary Cities Act as part of a section titled Public support. This most recent edit removed the section, saying "Public support: Removing ridiculous statement. A 2011 poll did not and could not support a 2015 proposal." The removed material cites this 13 May 2011 news article headed "Barletta’s sanctuary cities bill popular", referring to this bill titled, "H.R. 2057 (112th): Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act of 2011." That 2011 bill was not enacted. According to this 9 July 2015 press release, a 2015 version of that bill was introduced on that 2015 date. See also e.g., [4], [5]. Hoping to avoid an edit war over this, I'm not going to revert this latest removal. Please discuss here whether information about this bill should be included in that article and, if so, in what form. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This edit, which removed some content with the explanation, "Trying to sway voters by putting Hillary in a negative light" caught my eye. As the content was in a section headed Electoral politics the removed content seems to me not inappropriate, so I've restored it.
I've also moved the Electoral politics and Political action sections, recasting them as subesections under "United States".
If there is disagreement with either part of of what I've done here, please discuss and reach a consensus here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of the Hillary Clinton section. Is the purpose to show that she made contradictory statements and is untrustworthy? If so, I don't really see how that is useful information to the article. SeyeongMin ( talk) 06:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sanctuary city. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I just removed Portland, ME from the list, as its source link was broken, and this recent article states that Portland is not a sanctuary city. I attempted to find the TulsaWorld article that was originally linked, but Archive.org doesn't have it and despite significant searching - including searching through articles limited to the date indicated by the URL - found nothing that would support the assertion. -- The Human Spellchecker ( talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I found the following comment on another talk page to be relevant. Natureium ( talk) 05:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The term 'illegal immigrant' is misleading and should not be used in this article. Entering the United States without inspection is a crime. However, a substantial portion of the population we are referring to entered the U.S. legally on a visa, and then overstayed. Overstaying one's visa status is NOT a criminal offense; it's a civil violation. If the term "illegal immigrant" was solely being used to refer to those who committed a crime, then you have an argument. But, as it stands, you're using term that is not only needlessly inflammatory, but also inaccurate. JoelWhy?( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
IN THE "EFFECTS" SECTION OF THIS PAGE, PLEASE REPLACE:
According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime. [1]
WITH:
According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime. [1]
An internal government study, however, obtained via FOIA request from the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirms that a statistically significant problem exists with declined ICE detainers. Of 8,811 declined ICE detainers in the 8 month period of the study, 62 percent were associated with "individuals who were previously charged or convicted of a crime or presented some other safety concern." Of those, 36 percent were associated with individuals who had a prior felony charge or conviction on their records. [2] Phix1550 ( talk) 16:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just want to add the following (I'm still compiling resources but these can go in there now):
Los Angeles and Madison WI were the first to create ordinances for Sanctuary Cities. [1] Chicago passed Executive Order 85-1 in 1984 [2] Apanzerj ( talk) 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Dennis Maher ( talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to this entry additional information on the HISTORY of sanctuary cities from the 1980's.
Churches such as congregations of the Presbyterian Church USA offered sanctuary for persons facing deportation. Remembering the history of the underground railroad during the Civil War, church members and leaders were alarmed that the US government was declaring persons fleeing terror in Central American countries as "economic migrants" rather than refugees seeking asylum.
"In the 1980s, more than 500 U.S. congregations provided safe houses to Central Americans fleeing civil war but whom our government refused to acknowledge as refugees." [1]
The United States defines a refugee as "a person who has fled his or her country of origin because of past persecution or a fear of future persecution based upon race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group." [2] The article could benefit from providing further information regarding the status of refugees in sanctuary cities. Nhanak ( talk) 22:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This original motivation for the creation of sanctuary cities has been missing from political discussions in the early 21st century. Dennis Maher ( talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Dennis Maher ( talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |last=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal alien by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally Will ( talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
An editor feels strongly that the article should say that the growth in Sanctuary Cities has led to a crime wave from released arrested persons who were on an ICE detainers list. The reference cited is this Washington Examiner article. The Washington Examiner article is based on this alleged report to Congress from the Department of Homeland Security. Another editor has removed the material stating that the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source and that the cited report is a primary source. I believe that the article should state that the Sanctuary City movement has been criticized for leading to an increase in crime. The Washington Examiner article, however, is based on a document that was never issued by the government (it's labeled “draft”) so the alleged government report is not a reliable primary source. That undermines the Washington Examiner article as a reliable secondary source. A better source needs to be found. This Daily Caller article, for example, quotes Rep. John Culberson saying "Sanctuary cities are a hub for illegal aliens and criminal activity, and we’ve seen the tragic results of these policies time and time again". This seems like a reliable secondary source for the criticism that sanctuary cities lead to increase crimes by illegal immigrants.
On a related subject, this official publication of ICE does state the the refusal by some municipalities to honor ICE detainers led to a drop in criminal deportations in FY 2014 because they had to work harder to apprehend them. See page 4.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This article points to higher crime rates, you may distrust the website but it's sourced from FBI stats. http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/data-in-sanctuary-cities-have-higher-crime-rates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg hill ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This section needs to be expanded. Why is it that only one source is used in this section? When did the far-left Washington Post become the supreme authority on whether sanctuary cities are good or not? There actually are statistics out there that show violent crime is up in certain sanctuary cities (ie Los Angeles, San Francisco). In fact, the Washington Post article shows this too, but tries to dismiss it as statistically insignificant. I have proposed including opposing viewpoints, but certain editors have rejected them because it seems that any source that doesn't agree with their viewpoint should be called "not reliable". Just because a source is not neutral, doesn't make it unreliable, the Washington Examiner is a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources. I even tried to link a report from ICE that shows a large amount of illegals who commit crimes and are released by sanctuary cities go on to commit more crimes, but this was rejected too.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 00:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The lede sentence currently reads:
As I've learned more about sanctuary cities, I've realized that this is not true. Municipalities in the US have no authority to enforce Federal immigration laws. What sanctuary cities are actually doing is actively not cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Specific policies of non-cooperation are established. Should we reword the lede accordingly? -- Nowa ( talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sanctuary cities adopt policies of active non-cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement. That naturally raises the question of cities that adopt policies of active cooperation. Are there any? Is there a word for them? Should there be an article?-- Nowa ( talk) 14:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Does it make sense to break out the list of sanctuary city status of US cities?-- Nowa ( talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure whether San Antonio TX is a sanctuary city; this reference suggests it is not one yet but if it changes let's update it.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 18:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose deleting such content, the stuff that deals with the UK. It is off topic for this article and the word usage in Britain is both very fringe, is used in a different way, and apples to something different. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 04:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the sourced sentence in the California section about the Jamiel Shaw murder, because it is essentially a random fact that does not appear to have provoked debate specifically about the issue of "sanctuary city." It was a high-profile case, but including it here is a form of unapproved synthesis that asks the reader to make a connection between a crime by an illegal immigrant and the separate issue of sanctuary city status. It is similar to, but not the same as the Kate Steinle case, which explicitly caused much debate about "sanctuary" cities. DonFB ( talk) 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's collaborate, shall we? Some of the wording needs improvement for clarity and flow.
For example:
"through municipal policies or funds." I understand "through municipal policies." But "through...funds" is not really clear or normal usage. Let's try something like:
"through municipal policies and funding decisions."
Next:
"The designation is imprecise in legal definition."
Not wrong, but can be improved by stating more straightforwardly:
"The designation does not have a precise legal definition."
Avoids the quirky expression: "in legal definition."
The phrase "illegal alien inhabitance" reads as jargon.
Let's use more familiar language like:
"Policies which support or encourage the presence of illegal aliens..."
Or: "Policies which support residence by illegal aliens..."
Or: "Policies which support illegal immigrants..."
No hint of jargon. We can use "resident" or "residence." I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia is not a legal brief. We are writing for everyday people, not lawyers. All people understand "resident/residence"; it is not a restricted word, but "inhabitance" sounds odd and is odd.
I look forward to discussion that will improve the opening paragraph, which I regard as not yet fully satisfactory and in need of further editing. DonFB ( talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Pnop, the lede sentence now says "illegal alien," per your edit. I do not object in principle to the term, but I prefer to use "illegal immigrant" up front in the lead, because that term is used far more in various widely-read sources and will therefore be instantly recognizable and understandable to the general reader of this encyclopedia. I don't think a legalistic argument against "illegal immigrant" would carry much weight. Will you consider changing to "illegal immigrant"? DonFB ( talk) 09:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In 2013 the Associated Press changed its Stylebook to advise using "illegal" to describe action, but not people: "illegal immigration", but not "illegal immigrant." The AP also advises not to use "undocumented", because it is not specific. People may have documents, but not for immigration. Wikipedia is not obligated to follow the AP Stylebook, but we can choose to use its guidance to help us decide what terminology to use. DonFB ( talk) 22:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The term illegal alien is completely apt in denoting a class of aliens whose immigration status is not authorized by law. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service uses the term frequently within its own documentation to denote such aliens. [1] [2] The term illegal immigrant may be inappropriate as it has various legal definitions. [3] Attempting to avoid connotations of illegality within press coverage is not within the scope of NPOV nor does it lead to a concise introductory paragraph, for that matter. Pnop ( talk) 06:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: horizontal tab character in |title=
at position 43 (
help)
Snooganssnoogans, can you provide justification for using "undocumented immigrants" rather than "illegal immigrants" in the lede? I did say I was willing to see all terms used in the article, but I prefer "illegal" over "undocumented". When you removed "illegal alien," your edit summary said "no reliable source uses the term 'illegal alien.'" Fair enough (well, actually an exaggeration, but I'll accept the basic idea that the term is used much less than the others: 484k Google hits; see next sentence). A Google hit comparison shows 8.9 million for "illegal immigrants" compared to 3 million for "undocumented immigrants". Are you making a case that more sources use "undocumented" than "illegal"? I know Google hit comparisons are far from infallible and subject to criticism, but this quick-and-dirty comparison offers a point of departure for discussion.
DonFB (
talk)
12:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
But there are three listed below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.190.249 ( talk) 08:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The new text about Canada in the intro section is making a distinction between that country and the U.S. regarding the effect of sanctuary city practices in each country. However, in reading the article text and reading the new cited sources, I don't really see a difference. The text quotes a source which says that in Canada sanctuary city status "has no bearing on whether a refugee can be detained or deported" [direct quote from source]. I believe the meaning of that quotation is that the national Canadian government has the right to deport people, even if they live in a sanctuary city. The same is true in the U.S.: the Federal government, if it has physical custody of someone, has the right to detain and deport that person, even if he or she were found to be living in a sanctuary city. (Conflict is arising when a U.S. city declines to detain someone upon federal request, beyond the duration allowed by local law which applies in the particular case.)
The remainder of the sentence which contains that direct quote reads: "as it largely does not apply to the operations of local police or the federal Canada Border Services Agency" [quoting the WP article text, not a direct quote from a source]. I believe the word "it" in that text refers to "the designation" (ie, "sanctuary city"). But sanctuary city status does apply to the operations of local police in both Canada and the U.S., according to what the sources say about both countries. Police in such cities in both countries are discouraged or even prohibited from questioning people in most cases about their immigration status.
On the other hand, the new WP text correctly says that sanctuary city status does not apply to operations of the Canadian federal immigration agency. Arguably, the same is true in the U.S. The federal agencies in both countries retain all their powers, regardless of a city's declared (or undeclared) status, even if the cities do not fully cooperate with the agencies. The new text about Canada also says the designation "is largely symbolic" [quote from WP text, not direct source quote]. I don't think that is really accurate, because, as just stated, sanctuary city status in Canada can have, or does have, an impact on how local police do their job, just as in the case of the U.S. So, there is more than a "symbolic" effect; there is a tangible effect.
In sum, I think the new paragraph about Canada is making a distinction from the U.S. that does not, in fact, exist, notwithstanding that the federal systems in the two countries are of course not identical. If a meaningful distinction of some kind does exist, let's make the text very clear what that distinction is. If not, the new text needs some other modification, or perhaps the intro can simply be reverted to its condition prior to the addition. (But the new citations are good and might be inserted at some other appropriate locations). DonFB ( talk) 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Snoogans: You are guilty of Editwarring (1st individual to make 3 undos in a row w/out putting it onto Talk page or Arb request).
WP:RS#SELF-PUBLISHED. Self-pub = self-pub (no peer-review; prone to pseudo-science). (and fringe, etc).
I'll be happy to make my case here (1 post then decide to goto Arbitration or not) if Snoogans would like to explain his side to James and me (before he edit-wars with a FOURTH "undo" in a row). 97.98.86.66 ( talk) 20:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
WaPo's source vs. West's source:
97.98.86.66 ( talk) 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"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, determined: "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."[36] The study also showed that sanctuary cities build trust between local law enforcement and the community, which enhances public safety overall.[37] 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."[36]"
Anything from the left wing Center for American Progress is going to be biased. 2602:306:CC42:8340:E951:FE12:884D:3E57 ( talk) 09:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if it's just me, but the map used on this article is not correctly displaying all of the green and yellow shaded areas at all resolutions. Funcrunch ( talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we have an actual source for this definition: "a sanctuary city is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government in order to help people who are in the country illegally avoid deportation". A sanctuary city could simply be one which prioritizes other law enforcement goals (like, uh, fighting real crime) than catching and deporting undocumented migrants, families and all. Or put another way, a sanctuary city is simply a city which doesn't think that it needs to do the job of the Federal government.
This needs to be sourced or rewritten. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Information could be added on the remainder of the states that were not listed under the section talking about individual state laws towards these cities. James Cobb ( talk) 19:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A study from the Center for American Progress (a liberal think tank) is not a neutral source. Bjoh249 ( talk) 05:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Could we have a list added? Sea Captain Cormac 01:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
What I'm saying is we could use these terms interchangeably, half the time using illegal immigrants and half the time using undocumented immigrants. Would that work as a compromise? That said, I tried changing it a bit, but it's still a bit unbalanced (6 illegals, 13 undocumented).-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 09:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There are 12-yr old discussions on the talk page.
I am proposing to split the content about individual sanctuary cities and states into separate articles, such as List of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States, or List of sanctuary jurisdiction laws by state (maybe both) because this article has become a bit long and difficult to navigate. Bneu2013 ( talk) 03:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The second source for Oregon's sanctuary state law is a dead link, so I tried to add the archive.org link, but it gave me a lua error. If someone can figure out how to fix it, that would be great, thanks! TheAmeliaMay ( talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
As least four self described sanctuary cities (New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Martha's Vineyard) have been accused of hypocrisy for their negative reactions after the Republican governors of Texas and Florida sent undocumented immigrants to those cities. For example, after 50 undocumented immigrants were sent to Martha's Vineyard, Martha's Vineyard sent them to Cape Cod. The mayors in the other cities have also complained about it.
I think this is extremely notable, because it shows that the very concept of "sanctuary city" is really just virtue signalling.
I think this should be included in the article. Here are some sources:
Migrants sent by Gov. DeSantis to Martha’s Vineyard depart for Cape Cod
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2022/09/16/migrants-desantis-marthas-vineyard/
Washington, D.C., mayor declares public health emergency over Texas’ migrant busing
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/09/texas-busing-migrants-dc-emergency/
Operation Lone Star Spotlights Sanctuary City Hypocrisy, Buses Over 11,000 Migrants
After more migrants bused in, Texas governor criticizes Illinois leaders for sending them to suburbs
https://abc7chicago.com/migrants-bused-to-chicago-elk-grove-village-texas-governor/12225038/
Homan slams Mayor Bowser, Mayor Adams for immigration hypocrisy and 'out-of-control crime' in sanctuary cities
National security analyst: D.C. officials blaming border states for 'emergency' is 'ultimate hypocrisy'
NYC, DC sanctuary city policies come back to haunt them amid feud with Texas, Arizona
National Guard activated to assist migrants flown to Martha’s Vineyard by DeSantis
The political fallout of Martha's Vineyard
‘Height Of Hypocrisy’: Sheriffs Hammer Liberal Sanctuary Cities For Complaining About Illegal Migrants
Illinois governor, Chicago mayor blasted for 'hypocrisy' after sending migrants bussed from Texas to suburbs
Democrats' hypocrisy over migrant flights called out by GOP lawmaker: It's OK if they do it
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Another source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-plans-resume-busing-migrants-233300477.html SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 05:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Washington Post, May 2, 2023: "Migrants find no space in crowded hotels leased by D.C., council members say"
New York Times, May 7, 2023: "Suburbs Are Furious at Adams’s Plan to Send Migrants to Their Hotels"
Washington Post, May 10, 2023: "New York City sticking with migrant hotel plan despite pushback from suburbs"
New York Times, May 10, 2023: "Open-Armed Chicago Feels the Strains of a Migrant Influx"
Washington Post, May 11, 2023: "Amid expected surge of border crossings, a costly predicament for D.C."
NBC New York, May 13, 2023: "Wedding Parties Lose Hotel Rooms to Migrants Bused to Suburbs; County Fights NYC Plan"
Washington Post, May 14, 2023: "NYC converts hotels to shelters as pressure mounts to accommodate asylum seekers"
NBC New York, May 15, 2023: "‘NYC Is Out of Space': Frustration Mounts Over School Housing for Migrants "
Politico, May 15, 2023: "Schools are the latest epicenter of the migrant crisis"
CNN, May 17, 2023: "Migrants are staying on school grounds, in hotels or at police stations in several states – and some residents are furious "
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/us/new-york-orange-county-migrant-restraining-order/index.html
ABC New York, May 17, 2023: "Migrants moved from school gym in Brooklyn amid protests and backlash"
https://abc7ny.com/nyc-migrants-gyms-brooklyn-schools/13258610/
New York Times, May 18, 2023: "As Crisis Grows, All of New York’s Migrant Plans Are Met With Outrage"
Seattle Times, May 22, 2023, "NYC congressional leaders call on city universities to turn their dorms into migrant housing this summer"
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 21:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
As written, it seems a little bit artificial in terms of layout and flow and could be introducing a mild POV issue.
My preferred solution would be to add a subsection at the front of the History section with a new name such as “Traditional influences” or something to that effect. Obviously, the ideological roots of the movement need to be covered, but in an encyclopedic rather than journalistic manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 06:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
"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.[75]
A 2021 US study found that Latinos were more likely to report crime victimization to law enforcement after sanctuary policies were adopted in their areas of residence.[76]"
These two statements are contradictory. You cannot have an increase in victimization reported to police without a parallel increase in crime rates. This is the definition of reported victimization. Please at least clarify the conflict between these studies to avoid confusion among readers. 68.84.223.176 ( talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Acvgsu. Peer reviewers:
Lkelleygsu,
RBThom.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
SeyeongMin,
Josemgonz95. Peer reviewers:
SeyeongMin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Danelyford.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This is pure propaganda. But then, this is the absurd Wikipedia.
The following was removed:
A sanctuary city is a United States city that follows certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These practices can be explicit, or de jure, or they can be implicit, or de facto. The city is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation; in short, such a city does not enforce immigration law.
This is appropriate text. It addresses in formal language the practices that involve government officials' "looking the other way" (de facto) about illegal immigration, and formal declarations of non-cooperation with federal law (de jure). Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This section,
"Critics have argued that a large proportion of violent crimes in some sanctuary cities result from this policy. 95% of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants (as half of the outstanding arrest warrants in Los Angeles are for Mexican nationals who have fled the country, and hence cannot be arrested here).[4] (These data originate from a Center for Immigration Studies report which relied on data from a confidential California Department of Justice study.[5]) Two-thirds of felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants. Critics additionally argue that the policy provides a refuge for international gangs such as the MS-13 gang.[6]"
seems completely made up. The sources cited do not substatiate these absurd claims. Furthermore, what difference does it make if in one city a very high percentage of feloy warrants are for illegal immigrants? It would only matter if that was true in every "sactuary city." Lastly, what types of felony warrants were being issued? Were the warrants issued for illegal immigration or for nother crimes? This is an important question because the argument seems to be that illegal immigrants are committing a lot of crimes beyond just being in the country illegally. But if most of those warrants are just for being in the country illegally then illegal immigration does not appear nearly so damaging to the social fabric as it does if illegal immigrants are responsible for most of the crimes committed in cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.92.254 ( talk) 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I would also point out that the assertion is spurious because warrants become outstanding if the authorities chase their suspects out of the country, and hence out of reach. The entire section is overly and overtly alarmist. Fifth Rider ( talk) 21:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The following was removed to due to misrepresentation of cited material and for lack of citation to support included statistics: , citing one study showing that nearly half of outstanding homicide warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants. [1] Two-thirds of felony warrants in Los Angeles are for illegal immigrants. citation needed 76.202.75.206 17:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
References
An editor had removed a reference that linked to an article regarding the recent execution-style murder of three young women in Newark: Illegal Immigration an Issue in Newark Murders -- 08/13/2007. Of course, citizens commit murders. The concern is that the prime suspect had a long felony rap sheet, and he was an illegal alien. Community members and elected officials, e.g., Councilman Ron Rice, have expressed concern that if there were coordination between local law enforcement and federal authorities, this crime could have been prevented. Much of the activity of police is crime prevention, not merely pursuit of possible perpetrators of crimes. Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The following text was removed (-which also contained references to the murdered police and sheriffs, including among others: Ronald Johnson, Saul Gallego, David March):
Illegal aliens have been implicated in the killings of police and sheriffs during routine traffic stops. [1]
Again, it is true that citizens also murder police. The point is: these murders could have been avoided if the individuals in question were not in the United States, sheltered by sanctuary policies in so many cities. Dogru144 17:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
References
Is this term even used outside the United States? If not than I don't see how it could have a more international worldview. - LtNOWIS 20:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I heard that this term is a Neologism recently coined for this election. Does anyone know the origin of the term? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.39.219 ( talk) 04:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Working on it. I first got wind of it today; NPR used it somewhere around 3 times in as many minutes. I believe it was Mitt Romney using it. I would go poking around in transcripts of recent Republican stump speeches if I had time. I have a feeling that this is a new GOP dysphemism. Fifth Rider ( talk) 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In the section titled United States, there are at least 5 sentences which start with a phrase such as "Critics have argued", with a number of others starting with the names of specific critics or something like "They contend", where "they" means "critics". Yet, every attempt to insert a single sentence starting with "Proponents of such policies argue" gets reverted with a claim of POV pushing in the edit summary. Why is this? Is there some wikipedia rule about not starting a sentence with the letter "P". -- Ramsey2006 11:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
The following was the result of an anonymous editor editing a comment higher up on this talk page. It is unclear whether it was intended to be a talk page comment or an edit to the article (which the edit summary would seem to suggest), but I have reverted the talk page edit and am instead placing the edited comment as a (presumably) proposed alternative opening sentence here. -- Ramsey2006 23:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I just removed the following text from the lead because of formatting issues, and because it made uncited assertions about the definition. Can it be rephrased so that it fits in the article?
The city is a sanctuary for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation. A sanctuary city is not a place for illegal immigrants who wish to avoid deportation but is rather a city that simply dictates the role of the local governing body and its employees. The term sanctuary is somewhat of a misnomer as the policies do not interfere with the federal government’s ability to enforce immigration laws and protect immigrants from deportation. -- SarekOfVulcan 18:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The issue here is not semantics or minor details. The issue here is that the article itself must be about the nature and history of a political buzzword and not either a discussion of the policy it describes or a rant from either side. The article needs a new history section to explain the origin of the term. The article uses the buzzword as if it was a generally accepted academic term. The article clearly favors one side of the discussion over another, and cites unreliable and likely biased sources as it does so. I think we all need to calm down and find sources that describe the term and not the policy or arguments on either side. Encyclopedias are meant to inform, not convince. See WP:REDFLAG Fifth Rider ( talk) 15:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of the sources are from right wing blogs, including at least one that appears to be passing on rumors. Munchausen1000 ( talk) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Oh, dear. The phrase "The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding" is pure propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.116.165 ( talk) 20:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Criminal Law: U.S. states that harboring criminals is a criminal offense. Those harboring illegal aliens, which are criminals under US law (Don't like that hard cold fact, change the laws)are also criminals. Read a law book or two about
This kind of criminal behavior perpetrated by illegal aliens and political allies is what is pissing decent, hard working people off. I've seen this on FOX News, and on the New World Order News Network, other networks. A guy in San Francisco was murdered, along with his family by a gangbanger who was also a illegal alien. What is left of his family may sue the city on those charges, related charges. Can someone keep a eye on this? IF they do sue and win, a lot of bigwigs will be going to Club FED and/or get financially ruined. This could also affect this article as well. 65.173.104.138 ( talk) 09:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Madison Wisconsin needs to be added to the list of Sanctuary Cities.
Is this still correct? There was legislation that was voted on last year (March 2008) regarding funding for "sanctuary cities"... doesn't this mean that they must be legally defined somehow? Cfirst ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC).
Listing specific cherry-picked anecdotes of horrific crimes is probably inappropriate anywhere in this article-- it is a case of the exception fitting the rule. There are certainly individual stories of the positive effects of Sanctuary cities.
The little mention of an MS-13 member certainly doesn't belong in a section about "Political Action". Each other paragraph talks about the actions of a politician or political group.
Why were certain entries removed?
ALL of these incidents were the results of sanctuary cities NOT enforcing immigration laws:
I'd really like to know why. I can post more evidence if more is needed.
If there is no response(s) by the end of 21 April I will re-post the entries. Zukabovich ( talk) 22:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
He said such a role would hurt relationships with what he called “the most marginalized and vulnerable people within our community.” - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/nyregion/19newark.html?ref=nyregion
Can the two removed entries be listed now? Zukabovich ( talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This was the only entry on the talk page for the article "Don't ask (immigration policy)" which was merged with this page
This is the first comment in the talk page. The Don't ask policy and the Sanctuary city policy appear to be one in the same. The Sanctuary city article is is better sourced and has more information. The way I figure things it would be for the best to take and extra content from the Don't ask article, move it over to the Sanctuary city article and leave a redirect just in case. - Schrandit ( talk) 17:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't this legal theory seem to be closely related to Senator Calhoun's Doctrine of Nullification? I mean, Senator Calhoun said that if the feds passed a law the state didn't like, the state could get a convention together and nullify it in that state. Aren't the city officials in sanctuary cities saying, "We don't like the feds law, we're going to ignore it?" Samcan ( talk) 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree and think a reference to Nullification is warranted for the page. It's a shame that somehow that would now be considered vandalism, according to the page. And to think I actually contributed to Wikipedia monetarily in the past. Havequick99 ( talk) 21:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so I know nothing about Wikipedia, but I know the topics of sanctuary cities and nullification are linked. I read through the help pages to see what the process is for protection and unprotecting pages. I can see why this article would be protected. But I see no way of contacting the editor responsible since I cannot see a history of the page. I'd like to add in a reference to the nullification page if only to show that the establishment of a sanctuary city is de facto nullification of existing US federal law - the city governments listed have decided not to enforce federal law. Havequick99 ( talk) 21:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The information in the article supports only one point of view, that is, sanctuary policies have caused increased crime due to the fact that illegal immigrants are so predisposed. That is bullshit. This is a piss poor wiki article 15:32 26 Dec 2009
The line "The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through raising awareness, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society" should be removed. It is using generic, favourable vocabulary and descriptions to portray a particular political viewpoint on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg hill ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Might we want to remove Phoenix from the map? Butros (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
How does this even work? The police always ask for identification when detaining someone or asking questions. An illegal will not have proper identification. Therefore the illegal status is indirectly discovered (when that wasn't the original intent). - 70.233.148.177 ( talk) 16:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
one example: local ID cards http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-11-28/opinion/17267855_1_illegal-immigration-id-cards-cards-as-valid-identification 134.155.248.57 ( talk) 12:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it also tolerated to work in a sanctuary city? Or is only tolerated to stay there? 134.155.248.57 ( talk) 12:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
This article is incredibly one sided to the point that it reads like propaganda from one side of the immigration debate.
A couple of obvious points. Obviously, if cities are choosing to become "Sanctuary Cities" as this article alleges, there is support from their residents and politicians. Yet this article doesn't mention a single reason why many Americans living these cities would want their city to enact these policies. There is no mention of the negative impact of immigration enforcement by local police has on communities (including US citizens). There is no mention of the concern of racial profiling (which is predominant in any serious discussion on this topic). There is no mention of the significant opposition from law enforcement groups to immigration enforcement by local police officials.
The list of crimes at the bottom is ridiculous propaganda. As the saying goes, data is not the plural of anecdote and there is research to show that the destruction of trust between mixed immigrant communities and local law enforcement increases crime (not to mention the increased vulnerability in cases of domestic violence and domestic slavery).
This article is blatantly one-sided to the point of being anti-immigrant propaganda. When I have time, I suppose I could add the other side of the argument to at least make it a little less biased. But I am not sure if this article should even exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Physteacher ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
See this: [2]. Refers to an academic study. Also, it is a literature review, not a primary study. Miradre ( talk) 18:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC) This should also be added: "A major reason for sanctuary city policies is a claimed "Chilling effect" where reporting illegal aliens would harm relations with immigrants. However, there are no research that have found support for such an effect and immigrants themselves report this to be a minor concern when deciding to report crime or not, compared to language problems and fear of the criminals." Miradre ( talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is an interesting report: [3]. Will add it with some text tomorrow. Miradre ( talk) 19:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/
http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/sheffield
etc
-- Über-Blick ( talk) 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Recent pingpong edits have added and deleted content regarding the Mobilizing against Sanctuary Cities Act as part of a section titled Public support. This most recent edit removed the section, saying "Public support: Removing ridiculous statement. A 2011 poll did not and could not support a 2015 proposal." The removed material cites this 13 May 2011 news article headed "Barletta’s sanctuary cities bill popular", referring to this bill titled, "H.R. 2057 (112th): Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act of 2011." That 2011 bill was not enacted. According to this 9 July 2015 press release, a 2015 version of that bill was introduced on that 2015 date. See also e.g., [4], [5]. Hoping to avoid an edit war over this, I'm not going to revert this latest removal. Please discuss here whether information about this bill should be included in that article and, if so, in what form. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This edit, which removed some content with the explanation, "Trying to sway voters by putting Hillary in a negative light" caught my eye. As the content was in a section headed Electoral politics the removed content seems to me not inappropriate, so I've restored it.
I've also moved the Electoral politics and Political action sections, recasting them as subesections under "United States".
If there is disagreement with either part of of what I've done here, please discuss and reach a consensus here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to the purpose of the Hillary Clinton section. Is the purpose to show that she made contradictory statements and is untrustworthy? If so, I don't really see how that is useful information to the article. SeyeongMin ( talk) 06:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Sanctuary city. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I just removed Portland, ME from the list, as its source link was broken, and this recent article states that Portland is not a sanctuary city. I attempted to find the TulsaWorld article that was originally linked, but Archive.org doesn't have it and despite significant searching - including searching through articles limited to the date indicated by the URL - found nothing that would support the assertion. -- The Human Spellchecker ( talk) 20:34, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I found the following comment on another talk page to be relevant. Natureium ( talk) 05:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The term 'illegal immigrant' is misleading and should not be used in this article. Entering the United States without inspection is a crime. However, a substantial portion of the population we are referring to entered the U.S. legally on a visa, and then overstayed. Overstaying one's visa status is NOT a criminal offense; it's a civil violation. If the term "illegal immigrant" was solely being used to refer to those who committed a crime, then you have an argument. But, as it stands, you're using term that is not only needlessly inflammatory, but also inaccurate. JoelWhy?( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
IN THE "EFFECTS" SECTION OF THIS PAGE, PLEASE REPLACE:
According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime. [1]
WITH:
According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime. [1]
An internal government study, however, obtained via FOIA request from the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirms that a statistically significant problem exists with declined ICE detainers. Of 8,811 declined ICE detainers in the 8 month period of the study, 62 percent were associated with "individuals who were previously charged or convicted of a crime or presented some other safety concern." Of those, 36 percent were associated with individuals who had a prior felony charge or conviction on their records. [2] Phix1550 ( talk) 16:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just want to add the following (I'm still compiling resources but these can go in there now):
Los Angeles and Madison WI were the first to create ordinances for Sanctuary Cities. [1] Chicago passed Executive Order 85-1 in 1984 [2] Apanzerj ( talk) 04:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
References
Dennis Maher ( talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add to this entry additional information on the HISTORY of sanctuary cities from the 1980's.
Churches such as congregations of the Presbyterian Church USA offered sanctuary for persons facing deportation. Remembering the history of the underground railroad during the Civil War, church members and leaders were alarmed that the US government was declaring persons fleeing terror in Central American countries as "economic migrants" rather than refugees seeking asylum.
"In the 1980s, more than 500 U.S. congregations provided safe houses to Central Americans fleeing civil war but whom our government refused to acknowledge as refugees." [1]
The United States defines a refugee as "a person who has fled his or her country of origin because of past persecution or a fear of future persecution based upon race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group." [2] The article could benefit from providing further information regarding the status of refugees in sanctuary cities. Nhanak ( talk) 22:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This original motivation for the creation of sanctuary cities has been missing from political discussions in the early 21st century. Dennis Maher ( talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Dennis Maher ( talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |last=
(
help)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
A sanctuary city is a city in the United States or Canada that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal alien by not prosecuting them solely for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally Will ( talk) 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
An editor feels strongly that the article should say that the growth in Sanctuary Cities has led to a crime wave from released arrested persons who were on an ICE detainers list. The reference cited is this Washington Examiner article. The Washington Examiner article is based on this alleged report to Congress from the Department of Homeland Security. Another editor has removed the material stating that the Washington Examiner is not a reliable source and that the cited report is a primary source. I believe that the article should state that the Sanctuary City movement has been criticized for leading to an increase in crime. The Washington Examiner article, however, is based on a document that was never issued by the government (it's labeled “draft”) so the alleged government report is not a reliable primary source. That undermines the Washington Examiner article as a reliable secondary source. A better source needs to be found. This Daily Caller article, for example, quotes Rep. John Culberson saying "Sanctuary cities are a hub for illegal aliens and criminal activity, and we’ve seen the tragic results of these policies time and time again". This seems like a reliable secondary source for the criticism that sanctuary cities lead to increase crimes by illegal immigrants.
On a related subject, this official publication of ICE does state the the refusal by some municipalities to honor ICE detainers led to a drop in criminal deportations in FY 2014 because they had to work harder to apprehend them. See page 4.-- Nowa ( talk) 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
This article points to higher crime rates, you may distrust the website but it's sourced from FBI stats. http://www.wnd.com/2017/04/data-in-sanctuary-cities-have-higher-crime-rates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg hill ( talk • contribs) 11:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
This section needs to be expanded. Why is it that only one source is used in this section? When did the far-left Washington Post become the supreme authority on whether sanctuary cities are good or not? There actually are statistics out there that show violent crime is up in certain sanctuary cities (ie Los Angeles, San Francisco). In fact, the Washington Post article shows this too, but tries to dismiss it as statistically insignificant. I have proposed including opposing viewpoints, but certain editors have rejected them because it seems that any source that doesn't agree with their viewpoint should be called "not reliable". Just because a source is not neutral, doesn't make it unreliable, the Washington Examiner is a reliable source, see Wikipedia:Neutrality_of_sources. I even tried to link a report from ICE that shows a large amount of illegals who commit crimes and are released by sanctuary cities go on to commit more crimes, but this was rejected too.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 00:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
The lede sentence currently reads:
As I've learned more about sanctuary cities, I've realized that this is not true. Municipalities in the US have no authority to enforce Federal immigration laws. What sanctuary cities are actually doing is actively not cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Specific policies of non-cooperation are established. Should we reword the lede accordingly? -- Nowa ( talk) 14:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sanctuary cities adopt policies of active non-cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement. That naturally raises the question of cities that adopt policies of active cooperation. Are there any? Is there a word for them? Should there be an article?-- Nowa ( talk) 14:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Does it make sense to break out the list of sanctuary city status of US cities?-- Nowa ( talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Not sure whether San Antonio TX is a sanctuary city; this reference suggests it is not one yet but if it changes let's update it.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 18:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I propose deleting such content, the stuff that deals with the UK. It is off topic for this article and the word usage in Britain is both very fringe, is used in a different way, and apples to something different. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 04:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I removed the sourced sentence in the California section about the Jamiel Shaw murder, because it is essentially a random fact that does not appear to have provoked debate specifically about the issue of "sanctuary city." It was a high-profile case, but including it here is a form of unapproved synthesis that asks the reader to make a connection between a crime by an illegal immigrant and the separate issue of sanctuary city status. It is similar to, but not the same as the Kate Steinle case, which explicitly caused much debate about "sanctuary" cities. DonFB ( talk) 00:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Let's collaborate, shall we? Some of the wording needs improvement for clarity and flow.
For example:
"through municipal policies or funds." I understand "through municipal policies." But "through...funds" is not really clear or normal usage. Let's try something like:
"through municipal policies and funding decisions."
Next:
"The designation is imprecise in legal definition."
Not wrong, but can be improved by stating more straightforwardly:
"The designation does not have a precise legal definition."
Avoids the quirky expression: "in legal definition."
The phrase "illegal alien inhabitance" reads as jargon.
Let's use more familiar language like:
"Policies which support or encourage the presence of illegal aliens..."
Or: "Policies which support residence by illegal aliens..."
Or: "Policies which support illegal immigrants..."
No hint of jargon. We can use "resident" or "residence." I am not a lawyer, and Wikipedia is not a legal brief. We are writing for everyday people, not lawyers. All people understand "resident/residence"; it is not a restricted word, but "inhabitance" sounds odd and is odd.
I look forward to discussion that will improve the opening paragraph, which I regard as not yet fully satisfactory and in need of further editing. DonFB ( talk) 07:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Pnop, the lede sentence now says "illegal alien," per your edit. I do not object in principle to the term, but I prefer to use "illegal immigrant" up front in the lead, because that term is used far more in various widely-read sources and will therefore be instantly recognizable and understandable to the general reader of this encyclopedia. I don't think a legalistic argument against "illegal immigrant" would carry much weight. Will you consider changing to "illegal immigrant"? DonFB ( talk) 09:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
In 2013 the Associated Press changed its Stylebook to advise using "illegal" to describe action, but not people: "illegal immigration", but not "illegal immigrant." The AP also advises not to use "undocumented", because it is not specific. People may have documents, but not for immigration. Wikipedia is not obligated to follow the AP Stylebook, but we can choose to use its guidance to help us decide what terminology to use. DonFB ( talk) 22:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The term illegal alien is completely apt in denoting a class of aliens whose immigration status is not authorized by law. The United States Citizenship and Immigration Service uses the term frequently within its own documentation to denote such aliens. [1] [2] The term illegal immigrant may be inappropriate as it has various legal definitions. [3] Attempting to avoid connotations of illegality within press coverage is not within the scope of NPOV nor does it lead to a concise introductory paragraph, for that matter. Pnop ( talk) 06:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: horizontal tab character in |title=
at position 43 (
help)
Snooganssnoogans, can you provide justification for using "undocumented immigrants" rather than "illegal immigrants" in the lede? I did say I was willing to see all terms used in the article, but I prefer "illegal" over "undocumented". When you removed "illegal alien," your edit summary said "no reliable source uses the term 'illegal alien.'" Fair enough (well, actually an exaggeration, but I'll accept the basic idea that the term is used much less than the others: 484k Google hits; see next sentence). A Google hit comparison shows 8.9 million for "illegal immigrants" compared to 3 million for "undocumented immigrants". Are you making a case that more sources use "undocumented" than "illegal"? I know Google hit comparisons are far from infallible and subject to criticism, but this quick-and-dirty comparison offers a point of departure for discussion.
DonFB (
talk)
12:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
But there are three listed below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.190.249 ( talk) 08:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
The new text about Canada in the intro section is making a distinction between that country and the U.S. regarding the effect of sanctuary city practices in each country. However, in reading the article text and reading the new cited sources, I don't really see a difference. The text quotes a source which says that in Canada sanctuary city status "has no bearing on whether a refugee can be detained or deported" [direct quote from source]. I believe the meaning of that quotation is that the national Canadian government has the right to deport people, even if they live in a sanctuary city. The same is true in the U.S.: the Federal government, if it has physical custody of someone, has the right to detain and deport that person, even if he or she were found to be living in a sanctuary city. (Conflict is arising when a U.S. city declines to detain someone upon federal request, beyond the duration allowed by local law which applies in the particular case.)
The remainder of the sentence which contains that direct quote reads: "as it largely does not apply to the operations of local police or the federal Canada Border Services Agency" [quoting the WP article text, not a direct quote from a source]. I believe the word "it" in that text refers to "the designation" (ie, "sanctuary city"). But sanctuary city status does apply to the operations of local police in both Canada and the U.S., according to what the sources say about both countries. Police in such cities in both countries are discouraged or even prohibited from questioning people in most cases about their immigration status.
On the other hand, the new WP text correctly says that sanctuary city status does not apply to operations of the Canadian federal immigration agency. Arguably, the same is true in the U.S. The federal agencies in both countries retain all their powers, regardless of a city's declared (or undeclared) status, even if the cities do not fully cooperate with the agencies. The new text about Canada also says the designation "is largely symbolic" [quote from WP text, not direct source quote]. I don't think that is really accurate, because, as just stated, sanctuary city status in Canada can have, or does have, an impact on how local police do their job, just as in the case of the U.S. So, there is more than a "symbolic" effect; there is a tangible effect.
In sum, I think the new paragraph about Canada is making a distinction from the U.S. that does not, in fact, exist, notwithstanding that the federal systems in the two countries are of course not identical. If a meaningful distinction of some kind does exist, let's make the text very clear what that distinction is. If not, the new text needs some other modification, or perhaps the intro can simply be reverted to its condition prior to the addition. (But the new citations are good and might be inserted at some other appropriate locations). DonFB ( talk) 20:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Snoogans: You are guilty of Editwarring (1st individual to make 3 undos in a row w/out putting it onto Talk page or Arb request).
WP:RS#SELF-PUBLISHED. Self-pub = self-pub (no peer-review; prone to pseudo-science). (and fringe, etc).
I'll be happy to make my case here (1 post then decide to goto Arbitration or not) if Snoogans would like to explain his side to James and me (before he edit-wars with a FOURTH "undo" in a row). 97.98.86.66 ( talk) 20:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
WaPo's source vs. West's source:
97.98.86.66 ( talk) 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
"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, determined: "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."[36] The study also showed that sanctuary cities build trust between local law enforcement and the community, which enhances public safety overall.[37] 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."[36]"
Anything from the left wing Center for American Progress is going to be biased. 2602:306:CC42:8340:E951:FE12:884D:3E57 ( talk) 09:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if it's just me, but the map used on this article is not correctly displaying all of the green and yellow shaded areas at all resolutions. Funcrunch ( talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Do we have an actual source for this definition: "a sanctuary city is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government in order to help people who are in the country illegally avoid deportation". A sanctuary city could simply be one which prioritizes other law enforcement goals (like, uh, fighting real crime) than catching and deporting undocumented migrants, families and all. Or put another way, a sanctuary city is simply a city which doesn't think that it needs to do the job of the Federal government.
This needs to be sourced or rewritten. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 00:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Information could be added on the remainder of the states that were not listed under the section talking about individual state laws towards these cities. James Cobb ( talk) 19:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
A study from the Center for American Progress (a liberal think tank) is not a neutral source. Bjoh249 ( talk) 05:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Could we have a list added? Sea Captain Cormac 01:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
What I'm saying is we could use these terms interchangeably, half the time using illegal immigrants and half the time using undocumented immigrants. Would that work as a compromise? That said, I tried changing it a bit, but it's still a bit unbalanced (6 illegals, 13 undocumented).-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 09:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
There are 12-yr old discussions on the talk page.
I am proposing to split the content about individual sanctuary cities and states into separate articles, such as List of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States, or List of sanctuary jurisdiction laws by state (maybe both) because this article has become a bit long and difficult to navigate. Bneu2013 ( talk) 03:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The second source for Oregon's sanctuary state law is a dead link, so I tried to add the archive.org link, but it gave me a lua error. If someone can figure out how to fix it, that would be great, thanks! TheAmeliaMay ( talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
As least four self described sanctuary cities (New York City, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Martha's Vineyard) have been accused of hypocrisy for their negative reactions after the Republican governors of Texas and Florida sent undocumented immigrants to those cities. For example, after 50 undocumented immigrants were sent to Martha's Vineyard, Martha's Vineyard sent them to Cape Cod. The mayors in the other cities have also complained about it.
I think this is extremely notable, because it shows that the very concept of "sanctuary city" is really just virtue signalling.
I think this should be included in the article. Here are some sources:
Migrants sent by Gov. DeSantis to Martha’s Vineyard depart for Cape Cod
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2022/09/16/migrants-desantis-marthas-vineyard/
Washington, D.C., mayor declares public health emergency over Texas’ migrant busing
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/09/texas-busing-migrants-dc-emergency/
Operation Lone Star Spotlights Sanctuary City Hypocrisy, Buses Over 11,000 Migrants
After more migrants bused in, Texas governor criticizes Illinois leaders for sending them to suburbs
https://abc7chicago.com/migrants-bused-to-chicago-elk-grove-village-texas-governor/12225038/
Homan slams Mayor Bowser, Mayor Adams for immigration hypocrisy and 'out-of-control crime' in sanctuary cities
National security analyst: D.C. officials blaming border states for 'emergency' is 'ultimate hypocrisy'
NYC, DC sanctuary city policies come back to haunt them amid feud with Texas, Arizona
National Guard activated to assist migrants flown to Martha’s Vineyard by DeSantis
The political fallout of Martha's Vineyard
‘Height Of Hypocrisy’: Sheriffs Hammer Liberal Sanctuary Cities For Complaining About Illegal Migrants
Illinois governor, Chicago mayor blasted for 'hypocrisy' after sending migrants bussed from Texas to suburbs
Democrats' hypocrisy over migrant flights called out by GOP lawmaker: It's OK if they do it
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 20:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Another source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-plans-resume-busing-migrants-233300477.html SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 05:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Washington Post, May 2, 2023: "Migrants find no space in crowded hotels leased by D.C., council members say"
New York Times, May 7, 2023: "Suburbs Are Furious at Adams’s Plan to Send Migrants to Their Hotels"
Washington Post, May 10, 2023: "New York City sticking with migrant hotel plan despite pushback from suburbs"
New York Times, May 10, 2023: "Open-Armed Chicago Feels the Strains of a Migrant Influx"
Washington Post, May 11, 2023: "Amid expected surge of border crossings, a costly predicament for D.C."
NBC New York, May 13, 2023: "Wedding Parties Lose Hotel Rooms to Migrants Bused to Suburbs; County Fights NYC Plan"
Washington Post, May 14, 2023: "NYC converts hotels to shelters as pressure mounts to accommodate asylum seekers"
NBC New York, May 15, 2023: "‘NYC Is Out of Space': Frustration Mounts Over School Housing for Migrants "
Politico, May 15, 2023: "Schools are the latest epicenter of the migrant crisis"
CNN, May 17, 2023: "Migrants are staying on school grounds, in hotels or at police stations in several states – and some residents are furious "
https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/17/us/new-york-orange-county-migrant-restraining-order/index.html
ABC New York, May 17, 2023: "Migrants moved from school gym in Brooklyn amid protests and backlash"
https://abc7ny.com/nyc-migrants-gyms-brooklyn-schools/13258610/
New York Times, May 18, 2023: "As Crisis Grows, All of New York’s Migrant Plans Are Met With Outrage"
Seattle Times, May 22, 2023, "NYC congressional leaders call on city universities to turn their dorms into migrant housing this summer"
SquirrelHill1971 ( talk) 21:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
As written, it seems a little bit artificial in terms of layout and flow and could be introducing a mild POV issue.
My preferred solution would be to add a subsection at the front of the History section with a new name such as “Traditional influences” or something to that effect. Obviously, the ideological roots of the movement need to be covered, but in an encyclopedic rather than journalistic manner. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 06:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
"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.[75]
A 2021 US study found that Latinos were more likely to report crime victimization to law enforcement after sanctuary policies were adopted in their areas of residence.[76]"
These two statements are contradictory. You cannot have an increase in victimization reported to police without a parallel increase in crime rates. This is the definition of reported victimization. Please at least clarify the conflict between these studies to avoid confusion among readers. 68.84.223.176 ( talk) 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)