What is a Sanctuary City?
N. Peter Antone
Special to the Chaldean News
Policy has consequences for vulnerable communities
There is a persistent misconception that sanctuary cities allow “criminal illegal aliens” to roam freely and hide after committing crimes. Basic logic suggests this is not the case — regardless of party affiliation, elected officials generally care about the public and work to protect it. Yet the myth endures. Even those who oppose sanctuary city policies should base their positions on facts, not fiction.
The concept of a “sanctuary city” in the United States began in the 1980s, when religious congregations sheltered Central American refugees fleeing civil wars, arguing that U.S. immigration laws failed to recognize their legitimate asylum claims. Some cities adopted similar measures, rooted in the belief that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility and local resources should not be used for that purpose. The rationale was twofold: to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation and to encourage cooperation with local police without fear of immigration consequences — a factor considered essential for public safety and community trust. Over time, “sanctuary city” came to refer more broadly to jurisdictions that limit their involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
In 2002, during George W. Bush’s administration, a policy known as Section 287(g) was introduced, allowing — but not requiring — local and state law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements with federal immigration authorities to help enforce federal laws. Some cities opposed the program, fearing it would lead to racial profiling and erode trust between immigrant communities and police.
Those who believe sanctuary cities shelter dangerous criminals should consider the period before the 1980s. Were all U.S. cities “sanctuaries” then? Did undocumented immigrants who committed crimes avoid prosecution? In reality, undocumented immigrants who committed serious crimes could be — and often were — deported. Immigration enforcement was handled almost exclusively by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and local police generally did not investigate immigration status or report noncitizens unless specific circumstances arose. If a noncitizen — documented or undocumented — was convicted of a serious crime, they could be flagged for deportation through federal channels, particularly if they served time in federal or state prison or if a judge referred them to immigration authorities. Those who avoided deportation were typically individuals who committed minor offenses.
Sanctuary cities do not “cover up” or “hide” individuals from federal authorities, nor do they prevent federal immigration agencies from making arrests or pursuing deportation. Agencies such as ICE retain full authority to act independently. What sanctuary city policies do is limit the role of local police in serving as agents of the federal government.
This distinction has real-world consequences for vulnerable immigrant communities — including the Chaldean Americans of Michigan, many of whom fled persecution in Iraq. A memo sent to the Trump administration in January 2025 warns that Chaldean Iraqis currently have no federal legal protection from deportation — neither Temporary Protected Status (TPS) nor Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) applies to them. Without such protections, ICE has continued deportation efforts, allegedly including removals in California despite the state’s well-known sanctuary policies.
The memo from the Chaldean Community Foundation describes how Iraq’s Christian population has plummeted from 1.5 million in 2003 to fewer than 200,000 today, due to decades of sectarian violence and targeted persecution. It urges the administration to grant TPS or DED for Chaldeans through 2026, arguing that deporting them now could return them to a country where ethnic and religious minorities remain unsafe.
Whether the current administration will act on this request remains uncertain. While the sanctuary city framework can shield Chaldeans from local police cooperation with ICE, it cannot stop federal immigration agents from making arrests or carrying out deportations. In short, unless the administration grants TPS or DED, the Chaldean community remains legally exposed — even in cities and states that call themselves sanctuaries.
Ironically, sanctuary city policies align with a traditionally conservative principle: local control over local resources. Yet many conservatives today favor expanding federal power in this area.
In summary, sanctuary cities do not grant immunity from deportation. They set boundaries on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For the Chaldean community — and others in similar situations — only federal action can provide true protection from removal.