Opinion: Sanctuary Cities

Following a recent debate, I had a major question which goes largely unanswered in debates revolving around immigration: once immigrants enter the country, where do they go? The obvious answer, and the correct one, is that many of them remain in the southwest, largely in California and Texas (Pew Research Center). However, outside of the South and West, the third largest group of immigrants head to the Northeast, 21% of the total immigration population. A large reason for this migration comes from the status of many cities, not only in the Northeast but across the nation, as sanctuary cities. These cities often provide benefits, such as housing and food, as well as safety from deportation. Several states have laws against sanctuary cities, specifically Republican-led states in the South (CNN). While this practice has worked for many, some states – such as Florida – continue to receive immigrants despite having banned these cities. However, for those states which allow and even encourage the practice, some consequences are starting to appear as the infrastructure begins to crack with the weight of the sheer number of immigrants entering the country. 

The example closest to me happens in my home state of Massachusetts with the City of Boston. In 2014, Boston lawmakers passed a law making it illegal for any immigrant to be detained solely on migration status (Clauss). The bill had positive effects when it passed and still does to some extent, as it allows all migrants to make a good life for themselves as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law, and even though the “migrant crime wave” has been largely debunked, it still serves as a further disincentive for illegal activity. However, while the bill’s effects on most of the immigrants has been positive, it has had the unintended consequence of bringing a number of migrants into the state which neither the City of Boston nor the State Massachusetts was adequately prepared to handle, both as governments and as societies. Several moments have stuck out over the past year as signs of a state slowly losing its grip on the situation, beginning with the beginning of Maura Healey’s administration at the beginning of 2023. By the time August had come, Healey had already declared a state of emergency over the housing situation for migrants in Massachusetts, even asking families to consider taking in migrants to help them alleviate the burden from the state (Tenser). Because Massachusetts is the only state which must provide emergency housing to families who qualify, the spiral of finding housing for these migrants has continued throughout the last year, with migrants being housed in wings of the Boston Logan airport, recreation ice rinks, and former prisons. This example is far from the only one – hotel prices in New York City have skyrocketed to an average of $301 per night largely due to its use of five full hotels to house migrants. The question that arises with sanctuary cities is the same which will at some point arise with the rest of the country, but has arisen much earlier: at what point does the load become too much? While the current challenges posed by the immigrants are not ones that are too taxing – while expensive hotel rooms are annoying, they are definitely worth it to help those in need. However, as has been seen by the housing situation in Massachusetts, the quality of the services available to the immigrants also decreases greatly with load. 

Because of these factors, it’s clear that the main problem with sanctuary cities is the moniker of a “sanctuary city” in the first place. As we’ve seen, because of the sheer number of immigrants arriving in the country at the moment, advertising a city as a destination for migrants ensures their services will be overwhelmed, and while the consequences for most are minor as of now, the drop which has already occurred in the services offered shows the major flaws in the system. Instead, I think establishing federal guidelines on the services offered to immigrants by states and cities would provide a much more effective solution for dealing with the increases in population. This would both help take the load off of the cities which cannot accept much more capacity without sacrificing the quality of services offered and would ensure the states banning sanctuary cities do their part. While a major problem could arise in terms of the cities themselves – the reason many of these states don’t welcome immigrants is because of widespread anti-immigration views among their constituents – finding access to housing, food, jobs, and education for the migrants is a much more pressing issue. While the Trump administration attempted to “crack down” on sanctuary cities by removing their protections for immigrants, I think expanding these protections would allow migrants to not only survive but thrive in their new country with better opportunities.

Works Cited

Clauss, Kyle Scott. Boston Already Has Some Sanctuary City Protections: Thanks to the 2014 Trust Act, police can’t detain someone based on their immigration status Archived 2017-07-08 at the Wayback Machine, Boston Magazine (November 15, 2016)

Moslimani, Mohamad, and Jeffery S Passel. “What the Data Says about Immigrants in the U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 27 Sept. 2024, www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/09/27/key-findings-about-us-immigrants/#:~:text=Where%20do%20most%20U.S.%20immigrants,%25. 

Shoichet, Catherine E. “Florida Just Banned Sanctuary Cities. At Least 11 Other States Have, Too | CNN Politics.” CNN, Cable News Network, 14 June 2019, www.cnn.com/2019/05/09/politics/sanctuary-city-bans-states/index.html. 

Tenser, Phil. “Governor Declares Emergency in Mass. over Migrant Shelter Crisis.” WCVB, WCVB, 8 Aug. 2023, www.wcvb.com/article/massachusetts-gov-maura-healey-emergency-shelter-system-migrant-crisis/44762143. 

"Boston Blue Hours from Prudential Skywalk" by wenjieqiao is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.