Talk:Sanctuary city

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Upload

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Illegal immigration#Legal and political status|illegally]] The anchor (#Legal and political status) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It wasn't removed, it was made non-US-specific, per the {{global}} template that editor also added.--SarekOfVulcan 17:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the above text was removed. Just compare the history. Additionally, this is a US-specific term. Unless someone can otherwise document, the United States is the only nation-state that has a significant number of municipalities that make specific ordinances in resistance to national immigration policy. Dogru144 17:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This however was intentional as saying de jure and de facto is inappropriate. It's not a real sanctuary city if it is not written down. Virtually every U.S. city is a de facto sanctuary city under that definition. Perspicacite 17:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Again, If he had a long felony rap sheet, it's irrelevant whether he was an illegal immigrant or not. Just because they can't ask on arrest doesn't mean they can't ask on conviction, yes?--SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• If I made that edit, then The removal was unintentional. Perspicacite 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine wasn't. It wasn't relevant at that point in the article. There might be another spot it will fit, but I doubt it.--SarekOfVulcan 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see you're point. Of course if you increase population there are going to be more crimes. If we through all of the people out of the United States, there would be no crimes. Just because there's a random illegal immigrant out there who does a crime doesn't mean we should discriminate against them. Blacks, for one, commit more crimes than illegals, but I here no crimes for a genocide against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.251.36.143 (talk) 08:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is a wacko conspiracy web site.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I came here to ask the same question. As no one has answered you in more than two months, and I can find no reference to the term being used anywhere but in the United States, I'm going to remove the tag. faithless (^speak) 07:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the UK section to either be deserving of its own article or added on to one that exists. The refugee crisis that Western Europe (and Australia) is experiencing is quite different to the sanctuary city issues that pop up over the United States. I believe there is enough complexity in the US situation. SeyeongMin (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The overall content being changed is highly POV. Neutrality, not a 180 turn, is the goal. Perspicacite 15:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your interpretation of WP:NPOV apply to sentences that start with a "P", but not to sentences that start with a "C"? --Ramsey2006 16:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very clever, but not a particularly persuasive question. Perspicacite 02:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just explain why you will not allow a single sentence describing the positions of proponents of the policies in question, while several paragraphs of statements about the positions of critics (such as WorldNetDaily) are necessary. How does this help the article maintain neutrality? --Ramsey2006 12:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, all of these sentence starters should be reworked. State the facts without using weasel words. Fifth Rider (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A sanctuary city is a United States city that follows certain practices that protect its immigrant residents, regardless of their immigration status. These practices can be explicit, or de jure, or they can be implicit, or de facto. The city is a sanctuary for immigrants who seek to live without being discriminated against or targeted on account of their real or perceived immigration status (which all-to-often also involves issues of race and class). In short, such a city provides equal treatment and protection to all its residents, regardless of immigraiton status. Additionally, as a policy it seeks to affirmatively commit itself to protecting the human rights of all immigrants. 63.78.124.2 22:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I fixed some of the wording but not saying that is all that needs to be done. It would be good to have an official federal government wording of this to help the article. The notion of sanctuary cities is definately a rallying point of the U.S. anti-illegal immigration movement but is still a notable enough topic for an article. MrMurph101 (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because you believe an article to be about a "buzzword" doesn't mean it is. The article's intent is to describe the subject, which is the cities in question, and on a controversial subject that means exactly that we describe "the policy or arguments on either side." I don't know when "academic terms" came into play but here is one source showing the term being used by both opponents and proponents of sanctuary city policy. [1] A section describing the origin of the term would be welcome though. --70.143.56.251 (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• Criminal Solicitation
• Conspiracy
• Complicity in committing crimes by illegal aliens
• Accessory before,during, after the fact
• Treason
• Harboring fugitives, multiple counts
• Willful dereliction of Law Enforcement duties

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)[reply]

By the way, Phoenix, Arizona is not one of these cities, since Joe Arpaio started throwing illegals in jail.65.173.104.138 (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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.

It is possible that the example is out of place in the article but it did draw a lot of media attention and was the focal point of discussion on the "Sanctuary" policy. I feel it merits inclusion. - Schrandit (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of this single story supports one point of view (that Sanctuary cities make violent crime more likely). Would you also support stories that illustrate the arguments in favor of Sanctuary cities? There are plenty of stories about women trapped in abusive relationships, or US citizen children who are victimized, or violent crimes that are unreported in cities because they don't have Sanctuary policies. I would feel better about the inclusion of these anecdotes were they balanced as far as point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.4.160.10 (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why were certain entries removed?

ALL of these incidents were the results of sanctuary cities NOT enforcing immigration laws:

• On August 9, 2008, Jose Lachira Carranza, an illegal immigrant from Peru, killed three college students and injured one in Newark, New Jersey. Carranza had been arrested three times prior on felony charges but due to the sanctuary city policy that had been enacted his immigration status was not verified and thus did not face deportation. August 25, 2007 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/24/AR2007082402041.html

• In 2007, Tessa Tranchant and her friend Allison, were killed in Virginia Beach, Virginia by a drunk driving illegal immigrant who had been arrested twice before. http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46085

• In March 2008, Jamiel Shaw Jr., a high school athlete, was gunned down in Los Angeles by Pedro Espinoza, an illegal immigrant gang member from MS 13, as he was walking home. It is believed that Espinoza mistook Shaw Jr. for a rival gang member. Espinoza's legal status was not checked even though had been arrested for assault and was released a day before the murder according to Police Chief Officer William Bratton. http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6013048

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)[reply]

We don't list Virginia City or Newark as being sanctury cities. So are they or not? If not then the incidents don't belong here. So let's find sources to add them to the list, then add entries about controversies concerning their status.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Newark IS a sanctuary city: "The mayor of Newark, Cory A. Booker, has tried to keep the public discussion focused on his main goal: reducing the crime rate. Mr. Booker said he was frustrated that Mr. Carranza had been freed, but, responding to the debate surrounding the suspect’s illegal status, has come out firmly against involvingcity police in immigration matters.

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

• Virginia Beach WAS a sanctuary city at the time: "The city's previous rule had precluded police from asking foreigners about their status, with the exception of felony cases, but Police Chief Jake Jacocks says the new rule "is effective right now." - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55504

Can the two removed entries be listed now? Zukabovich (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Newark, I don't see who is calling it a "sanctuary city". Do we have a source for that assertion? Deciding that it is one based on a vague comment by the mayor isn't the same thing.

In the case of Virginia Beach, Bill O'Reilly is the only person cited as calling it a "sanctury city". I don't think he can be considered a neutral observer in this context.   Will Beback  talk  23:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What I quoted from VB police chief Jake Jacocks pretty much stated that VB is a sanctuary city, a city that doesn't check the legal status of arrested individuals.

“My Police Department does not play an I.N.S. function,” Mr. Booker said. “We are not to be running around doing interrogations about whether someone is documented or not.” - Newark Mayor Cory Booker. In that quote Mr. Booker implied that the city wouldn't be checking the legal status of arrestees hence it's a sanctuary city. Zukabovich (talk) 23:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Implied" is not sufficient. We should have a source that calls it a "sanctuary city". It should be noted that local police are not generally tasked with enforcing federal law. Other than checking for outstanding warrants, cops usually stick with enforcing the laws thet they see being broken. So not taking the extra step of checking the immigration status of every misdemeanor suspect isn't extraordinary.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was the only entry on the talk page for the article "Don't ask (immigration policy)" which was merged with this page

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You can put in an edit request below. Use this template:

{{edit semi-protected|Sanctuary city|answered=no}}

In particular, you could request that the link Nullification_(U.S._Constitution) be placed in the “See Also” section.--Nowa (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the question above, the answer is a resounding "No." This "legal theory" is not even remotely related to Senator Calhoun's Doctrine of Nullification, nor is "the establishment of a sanctuary city is de facto nullification of existing US federal law."

No one — in any state where sanctuary cities exist — has ever declared, by statute or otherwise, that Federal immigration law is unconstitutional, that "illegal aliens" may not be deported or, most importantly, that Federal immigration officers may not detain and ultimately deport such aliens from within the municipal jurisdictions in question. Any of those actions might encompass an attempt at Nullification and/or Interposition, and they would not survive a day in effect.

On the other hand, federalism is still a valid doctrine in the United States, some "states rights" do exist, and state governments are not the mere lackies of the Federal government: states cannot be compelled to use state law enforcement resources to enforce federal law. Please read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)#State_Refusals_to_Assist_in_Enforcement_of_Federal_Law Tejanoviejo (talk)

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

There does seem to be a little bias. The article does just launch into a listing of crimes that illegal immigrants have committed under "Controversial incidents". There are no statistics reported and no mention of crime in the rest of the article other than in a description of the 1996 act. I think it might be better to have a section that describes overall controversy related to sanctuary cities, specifically how it differs from general opposition to illegal immigration. –davewho2 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "Controversial incidents" section is deeply problematic from a NPOV perspective and I can't see a fix for it. Maybe renaming the section "Bad Things Which Happened Which Have Been Blamed on Sanctuary Cities" would help. You could add a similar section to the dihydrogen monoxide article to make it seem like a menace to society. I think the rest of the article is informative and rescueable. --Specrat (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came back to see if it had improved. The "Controversial incidents" section now carefully ties each incident to a Sanctuary City policy, which is a great improvement in terms of relevance but a disaster from a NPOV point of view.

I therefore withdraw my opinion that the article is rescueable. Take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. --Specrat (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Might we want to remove Phoenix from the map? Butros (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's biased on both sides of the issue and does come off as slightly unencyclopedic. Lulaq (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, that's a primary source. It's the actual abstract, see? And it doesn't appear to have been published or peer-reviewed which makes it basically an editorial. You would need high-quality reliable sources which discuss this "study" before we could even consider it. As for the second bit, that appears to be unreferenced editorializing. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the study instead of the abstract. It is a literature review. It has been published in Seton Hall Legislative Journal. The "second bit" is also from the study.Miradre (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a primary source. You're linking to the actual study. Also, SHLJ is not a reliable source (it is published by students and not peer-reviewed). It is likely that the author of this "study" is also a student. Nothing about this source approaches reliability or notability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, literature reviews are not primary sources. Read WP:PRIMARY. But I would find a better source since it may be student published.Miradre (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interesting report: [3]. Will add it with some text tomorrow.Miradre (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CIS is never considered a reliable source. It's a highly partisan organization of questionable scholarship. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not more unreliable than material from Greenpeace or the Democratic Party.Miradre (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum for engaging in political debates. I'm simply explaining policy. CIS is not considered a reliable source by wikipedia standards. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in that policy prohibiting a report by an organization. Be it Greenpeace or CIS.Miradre (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to re-open the case at Reliable Sources Noticeboard if you feel consensus has changed. I doubt that other editors will decide they've suddenly become reliable in the last few months, but give it a shot if you feel like it. In the meantime, consensus was that CIS is not a reliable source for factual material about anything other than themselves. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reports_by_organizations_with_a_POV. There is no general prohibition against self-publised material by an organization. I will add a proper attribution.Miradre (talk) 09:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just shouting "I didn't hear that!". Self-publishing isn't the central issue, but since you brought it up, self-published sources may only be used as sources of information about themselves (emphasis wikipedia's). And even then there are strict guidelines, one of which is that it doesn't involve claims about any third-parties (people, organizations or any other entities). See WP:SELFPUB for more information on this. But that's only part of the problem with CIS's reliability, which is why consensus has already established that they are not a reliable source. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFPUB does not state that such sources are limited only to themselves. Again, I asked for clarification in general for such sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reports_by_organizations_with_a_POV. There is no general prohibition against self-publised material by an organization.Miradre (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again. Notice the bold text? It's bold for a reason; it's important. I'm not going to go in circles with you on this, policy has been explained to you.--Loonymonkey (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bold text restricting such sources to themselves. Again, I asked on the noticeboard. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reports_by_organizations_with_a_POV. Miradre (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/

http://www.cityofsanctuary.org/sheffield

etc

--Über-Blick (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your point is well taken. I didn't catch there was a 2011 Act as well as a 2011 poll. My bad. It looked to me like somebody was trying to say that a 2011 poll demonstrated public support for the recent politicking surrounding the issue, and of course that would be flagrant SYNTH. I wouldn't object to re-adding, provided the wording is clear and synthesis is avoided. Eclipsoid (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100731163430/http://www.kob.com:80/article/stories/s995094.shtml?cat=516 to http://www.kob.com/article/stories/s995094.shtml?cat=516

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I found the following comment on another talk page to be relevant. Natureium (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The phrases "illegal immigrant" and "undocumented immigrant" are both phrases invented by partisans for political purposes. The term "alien" is codified in federal immigration law. The term has well understood meaning and is used throughout federal and state statutes. See https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html for more details. If you simply reference the definitions section of the act you will see that the term alien is the key term in the immigration law, see https://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-101.html#0-0-0-164. Someone who is not a citizen of the U.S. is an alien. An alien who is in the U.S. and who has not satisfied the requirements under the law to be here legally is an "illegal alien" or an alien who is in the U.S. illegally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RumorQuake (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources overwhelmingly use the terms "undocumented immigrants" and "illegal immigrants". It's almost exclusively unreliable sources and fringe websites that use the term "illegal aliens". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick google search:

• "About 2,430,000 results" for "undocumented immigrant"
• "About 15,900,000 results" for "illegal alien"
• "About 3,080,000 results" for "illegal immigrant"

Natureium (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both "undocumented immigrant" and "illegal immigrant" get more results each than "illegal alien" (if you search for the terms accurately: use the quotation marks, unless you want results for alien creatures). That's not relevant to what I said though: reliable sources overwhelmingly use those two terms, whereas less reliable sources and fringe websites use the alien one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By Google search "illegal immigrant" (with quotes) has the mosts hits. By Google books it's "illegal alien." I'd be fine with either though I'd prefer alien, which is more accurate legally. "Undocumented" is a needlessly undescriptive term. D.Creish (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to straighten this out. I for one, vote to use the term illegal since it is 100% accurate. Regardless of what these persons intentions may be (find a better job, have a better life) they ARE breaking the law just by being here. The term undocumented is a political term and to my knowledge it is not present in any federal law. Its a really nonsensical term. Where someone drives without a license (such as when they lost it due to drunk driving), is it ever called undocumented driving? Same thing here.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about a study on this? (I know at least one user here who really loves studies) ’Illegal,’ ’undocumented,’ ’unauthorized’: News media shift language on immigration So-called reliable sources still more often that not use "illegal" although there is a trend towards "undocumented". I also would support the term "unauthorized immigrants>."

There has been a massive shift since 2013. Since 2013, the following news organizations have banned "illegal immigrant": Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, Politico, NPR, and USA Today. The AP stylebook, which is described by this CJR piece as "the last word on journalistic practice" has banned the term[6]. If reliable sources are outright banning the term, we should follow their lead and opt for the less controversial, and in my opinion, more precise, term. If you feel passionately about reverting long-standing content, you should do a Request for Comments, if there hasn't been one. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)

The term "illegal immigrant" has connotations that tips the neutrality of this article. The popular usage of this word does not mean that the term is correctly used. As mentioned above, "illegal" references a criminal offense. Even those who have crossed the border without papers are not considered illegal due to the very real possibility that they may apply for a refugee status. The term undocumented is not only neutral, it avoids suggesting that the entire existence of a person is "illegal". In the past marginalized communities have been subject to horrific "nicknames" and thus I'd suggest the usage of "undocumented" or "unauthorized". SeyeongMin (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure what the supposed findings are supposed to be or how it relates to the impact of sanctuary cities on crime rates. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done concur with the above editor, moreover, a document obtained via a FOIA request is a primary source, and has not been published, making the interpretation and/or conclusions WP:OR - Arjayay (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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):

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dennis Maher (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 16:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

We shouldn't mix politicians' pro and against rhetoric with actual studies on the matter. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Political statements should be clearly identified as such.--Nowa (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was only trying to bring some balance to the article. These cities are widely criticized and there should be an explanation of why. I support using other sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add politicians' criticisms of sanctuary policies, add it to the sections "Electoral politics" and "Political action". It shouldn't be mixed up with actual studies on the effects of sanctuary cities. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure what draft at the bottom of those pages refers to. There is such a thing as a final draft. It was released by the government through a FOIA request as per the Examiner article, so therefore it is real not alleged.Rusf10 (talk) 23:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the report we can say that out of 8811 declined detainers over the eight month period, 2414 (27%) were arrested again. And these individuals collectively committed 7491 crimes. The top crimes were drugs offenses, duis, traffic offenses, vehicle theft, and arson. All this is relevant because some may argue that those crimes all could have been prevented if the individuals were removed from the country. And keep in mind this is only an eight month period, not a full year.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The report is not a publication of the US government but merely an internal deliberative draft document marked For Official Use Only (FOUO). That means it's not a reliable source. If it was ever delivered to Congress as the Washington Examiner says, then it should be available through the Congressional record. In that case it would be an official publication of the US government and hence a reliable source. --Nowa (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is they never intended to release the report to the public, but because of the FOIA request it was. It doesn't make it unreliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that because it was obtained by an FOIA request it's actually more reliable than if it was an official publication?--Nowa (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I'm saying that it is neither more or less reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not cite an official publication for the statistics you are looking for? That way we would both be on the same side.--Nowa (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is none exists. The government does not officially release the statistics on their own because it makes them look ineffective. I really cannot find any other report with any statistics on the subject, other than this one:Cops increasingly denying requests to hold illegals, though it mostly focuses on the state of Massachusetts.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the Boston Herald article. It clarifies that Boston must give arrested persons equal access to bail commissioners irrespective of them being on an ICE detainer list. Bail commissioners are informed of the person’s status on an ICE detainer list and set bail accordingly. I wonder if ICE is informed of the arrest and if they apprehend the detainee when they subsequently show up for their court date. Or alternatively, I wonder how many detainees jump bail and fail to show up for their court date for fear of being apprehended by ICE.

But as to the problem of government agencies being reluctant to issue reports that are embarrassing, I completely agree. On the other hand, I honestly don’t trust anything posted by the Center for Immigration Studies. For all I know this alleged ICE document could be a complete forgery. I personally would need to see some sort of independent verification of what this report is, who wrote it, why they wrote it and what validation process it went through before I could accept it as a reliable source. At least when the government officially issues a report, you know who wrote it, why they wrote it and what validation process it went through. --Nowa (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think our problem will be solved very soon, we will have official government reports on this. Trump orders weekly publication of crimes committed by illegals in sanctuary cities

Sounds good.--Nowa (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That crime went up in some sanctuary cities is as relevant as the fact that it went down in others. Sanctuary cities taken together showed no increase in the crime rate. As the authors of the study write, "That is, a sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime." Which is what this Wikipedia page also says. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Washington Examiner is an unreliable source and shouldn't be cited for anything on Wikipedia. The Wall Street Journal has a conservative slant but is reliable, the New York Times has a liberal slant but is reliable, the Washington Examiner is just garbage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can you write off a source as garbage? IMO, the Washington Post is garbage, but I'll allow its use. Why don't you take a look at this: News' And How The Washington Post Rewrote Its Story On Russian Hacking Of The Power Grid`--Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One inaccurate story does not make WaPo garbage. If you want to argue that WaPo is unreliable, take your complaint to the RS noticeboard, where you'll promptly get shot down.[7] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion, I actually went to the RS noticeboard and the consensus seems to be that the Washington Examiner IS a reliable source. Although the people the people there gave some well-reasoned arguments on why I should not use that particular article and have convinced me so. That said, the effects of sanctuary cities are not so simplistic that they can be described in only one sentence with reference to only one article. Just because a particular source doesn't fit into your worldview doesn't mean you can just apply a label to it. Next time, try to articulate a thoughtful argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a study or other RS as to the effects of sanctuary cities on crime, please add it to the article. There is absolutely nothing wrong with or misleading about: "According to one study, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime." We don't add balance for the sake of balance: if there are studies that show SP increase crime, they're added, and if there are studies that show that SP decrease crime, they're added. And I stand by my remark that the Washington Examiner is garbage. That it can't do the most rudimentary tasks of a journalistic organization: accurately describe the contents of a government report illustrates this further. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your extreme bias is noted. Again, one sentence cannot possibly explain the effects of any policy.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lede sentence currently reads:

In the United States or Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that has adopted a policy of protecting undocumented immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally.

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)[reply]

This is an excellent point. "refusing to cooperate with" ? "denying cooperation to" ? How would you suggest phrasing it? D.Creish (talk) 08:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article is still titled Sanctuary city and not Sanctuary city in the United States, differences in other countries laws should be taken into consideration. An excellent point however and one that must be reflected in the article ASAP. Calexit (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

??? The term 'cooperation cities' does not seem to be used much; rather, it looks like a term contrived by a Wikipedian with a pro-Trump POV. Generally, in US, cities are where liberals & progressives & nonpartisans tend to congregate, and any city which described itself as a "cooperation city", publicly, would find itself in political hot water in a jiffy, since city people know how immigrants contribute to local economies and are good people (all Americans are essentially immigrants or descended from them). If one wishes, try floating an article entitled Cooperation city, and I bet it would be deleted in a week.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are certainly cities that say they are not sanctuary cities, but I think that's very different than a city that is proactively assisting in federal immigration enforcement. For example, Springfield MA insists they are not a sanctuary city and that they fully cooperate with federal detainer requests, but they still will not "undertake immigration-related investigations and shall not routinely inquire into the specific immigration status of any person(s) encountered during normal police operation" A few years ago Arizona and Alabama passed laws for proactive immigration enforcement. Many provisions of these laws, however, have been struck down by federal courts or are subject to ongoing litigation. In light of these legal challenges at the state level, can there even be any cities, municipalities,counties, villages, etc. that have a programs for proactive enforcement of federal immigration laws? If not, then could not all cities, municipalities, counties, villages etc. be considered "sanctuary cities"?--Nowa (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes, but I don't know about using the term cooperation cities. I think its safe to say that most major cities that have not come out as sanctuary cities generally cooperate (even though they may not have taken a public position). The most notable example of support for Trump's order is miami-dade county. Florida's largest county to comply with Trump's sanctuary crackdown

Does it make sense to break out the list of sanctuary city status of US cities?--Nowa (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should follow what a similar section in 'Voter ID Laws in the United States' does[8]: Put the content in a table, remove each state from the table of contents. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.--Nowa (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Canada and UK content should definitely not be deleted from WP, but it could be moved into new articles with a "See also" here.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on moving them into articles of their own. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but prepare to see then being AFD'd. I do not see content sufficient for, or justifying, stands-alone articles. I think it would be better to find existing articles to transfer this content to. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also support moving out the non-U.S. stuff, either to standalone or existing articles about immigration or the countries themselves. If it is decided to move the material to a standalone, this article might need to be renamed (moved) to "Sanctuary city (U.S.)", and the new one could be "Sanctuary city (non-U.S.)", if that were to be agreeable. DonFB (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The major reason I added the non-US content is that at the time, there was a presumption in the article that sanctuary cities were strictly a US/Canadian phenomena. That seemed a bit US centric.--Nowa (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think there is a place in this article for the content related to the L. A.'s view on detainment of undocumented persons accused of a crime and the issues that raises. The reference doesn't use the word "sanctuary city", but that is the core issue of sanctuary cities. Here's a link to the article for others to review.--Nowa (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's reasonable for the article to include sourced information about L.A.'s "view on detainment of undocumented persons," as you phrased it. But mere mention of a particular crime is not the right way to do it. DonFB (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed that the lede needs a re-write. I recommend finding a few overview news articles of sanctuary cities and using similar language as they use. Here are a few:

• http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/11/economist-explains-13
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/sanctuary-cities/
• http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/25/politics/sanctuary-cities-explained/ Snooganssnoogans (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I briefly tried editing this article while not using "illegal immigrant," and it's too awkward to do so. I agree with the AP, which said, "Will the new guidance make it harder for writers? Perhaps just a bit at first." It is harder, and we're not under obligation to the AP to avoid the term. Therefore, I will not shy from using that phrase. I do not object to use of "alien" or "illegal alien," but I'm sure plenty of people do object and may try to eliminate those terms from the article. I do not approve using "undocumented immigrant" for a reason you expressed above: it is an attempt "to avoid connotations of illegality"; I consider the phrase a politically correct euphemism.

This article will benefit from the addition of text to briefly explain the issues and sensitivities around these terms: that "illegal alien" is a term used by government; that "illegal immigrant" is a term that has been used in the popular press, and that "undocumented immigrant" is a term favored by people who want to avoid offending the immigrants or those who support the immigrants' cause. I think it may be extremely difficult, and may not be necessary, for editors of this article to reach consensus to use only one of these phrases. I am willing to see all of them in the article (though I am biased against "undocumented immigrant" and won't use it), and I am reasonably settled in my own mind about using "illegal immigrant" wherever it may seem appropriate. DonFB (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB, you bring up an interesting point on your last edit^[4] in adding "in order to protect immigrants from deportation." My previous edit tried to eliminate implications that all sanctuary cities were actively setting policies to protect immigrants from deportation as I'm not entirely certain some cities are actively trying to protect immigrants. What are editors' thoughts on intent to protect deportation as a requisite for a sanctuary city designation? Pnop (talk) 08:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am guided in part by an Economist article which says that Sanctuary City is a term "widely used to refer to American cities, counties or states that protect undocumented immigrants from deportation by limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities." http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/11/economist-explains-13 DonFB (talk) 08:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DonFB, I also completely agree that there should be a section dedicated to terminology as it is and remains an impediment to definition and introduction within the first paragraph. Pnop (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

But there are three listed below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.223.190.249 (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis County, Texas is still shaded green on the map, but last I checked the courts have upheld the anti-sanctuary city law that was signed by the Governor.Bjoh249 (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

One is a study conducted by political scientists and covered on the Washington Post's political science blog, the other was something sourced to Allen West's website. One is a reliable source, the other is not. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When we cite academic studies conferring a degree of authority and rigor the guildelines in WP:SCHOLARSHIP apply. For example, an un-published, un-peer-reviewed study linking vaccines and autism would not be usable. If Rolling Stone cites it, it would still not be usable. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of that has any bearing in this case. If 538 does an analysis of something, we don't remove the analysis just because it hasn't been peer-reviewed - 538 is RS. If a credible think tank does an analysis, we don't remove it just because it hasn't been peer-reviewed - if the think tank is a RS and the analysis has been covered in secondary RS. If the Washington Post's poli sci blog covers a study, it is acceptable per "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write". This is a study by professionals in the field and covered on a highly acclaimed blog run by political scientists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If the think tank is a RS" – what think tank is RS? This is a weak study covered by one blog months ago which no one has mentioned since then, in academia or media. Even cite-able it wouldn't be due weight in our short section on Effects->Crime. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak study" is OR. The study has also been used by the WaPo fact-checker and FactCheck.Org, both of which are RS:

• WaPo fact-checker[9]: "In an August 2016 study of roughly 80 jurisdictions, University of California at Riverside and Highline College researchers used FBI city-level crime data to see how violent and property crime rates changed after sanctuary policies were adopted. Then they compared each sanctuary city to a similarly situated, non-sanctuary city, based on census data and other variables. They found that “a sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.”"
• FactCheck.Org[10]: "The authors of a recent study, however, contest Trump’s claim that sanctuary cities “breed crime.” The study from researchers at the University of California, Riverside, and Highline College — which the authors wrote about for the Washington Post‘s Monkey Cage blog — concluded that there was no evidence of higher crime rates in cities with sanctuary policies. “We find no statistically discernible difference in violent crime rate, rape, or property crime across the cities,” the researchers concluded. “Our findings provide evidence that sanctuary policies have no effect on crime rates, despite narratives to the contrary.”"

Will you now self-revert? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Weak study" is based on an evaluation of the source per the guidelines at WP:SCHOLARSHIP: not published in a reputable journal (or in fact any journal) and not peer reviewed. That is not WP:OR.

The first one amounts to: "the WaPo investigated the WaPo's claims and found them to be relevant." Regardless, WaPo citing itself doesn't add to weight. Factcheck.org is marginal according to this RSN discussion – is there a more recent discussion? James J. Lambden (talk) 22:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FactCheck.Org is a reliable source - don't be obtuse. The Washington Post's poli sci blog is not the WaPo fact-checker. If your claim is that the WaPo fact-checker is an unreliable source for any claims made in WaPo reporting, op-eds or blogs, then nothing covered by the WaPo fact-checker would be accepted. Are we seriously at this point, right now? You're argument is now that the WaPo fact-checker is not a RS and FactCheck.Org is not a RS? Here's also PolitiFact covering the study[11]: "Another 2016 study, led by researchers out of the University of California Riverside and Highline College, found that sanctuary designations have "no statistically meaningful effect[s] on crime."" Will you now self-revert or is PF also not a RS? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it is. And my argument is that an organization confirming its own report does not increase the credibility of that report. That said, considering the number of references to this report I withdraw my WP:WEIGHT objection. I still don't believe the source meets academic requirements but if you reinsert it I won't remove it. James J. Lambden (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. They are both widely recognized as highly politicized sources. Even by WaPo's own admission of past errors in some cases, WaPo have failed to fact-check properly OFTEN in the past:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2017/01/01/fake-news-and-how-the-washington-post-rewrote-its-story-on-russian-hacking-of-the-power-grid/#4f97b0b27ad5

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/12/no_author/wapo-hurt-fake-news-smear/

https://www.google.com/search?q=WaPo+"Washington+Post"+Fake+News (How many results calling them that, mostly with tangible examples???)

---

Congressman Allen B West can be identified as a political, biased source -- by his leftist critics.

which is the SAME-SAME as: WaPo can be identified as a political, biased source -- by THEIR righty critics.

---

2. As shown in the above lists, WaPo has poor reputation for fact-checking, with most of their critics citing specific examples (which WaPo then does not rebut, most frequently). Please show us where Allen B West has similar reputation (his detractors not only disagreeing with his stances/interpretations, but critiquing and proving VERIFIABLY (WP:V) false (falsifiability) ANY of West's UNDERLYING FACTS, as some have proven WaPo's claims falsifiable in some of the above examples.

WaPo's source vs. West's source:

3. West's source -- Palumbo -- is a published journalist and (book) author, who's had a reputation for good fact-checking (AFAIK; show us examples of people challenging his underlying FACTS (fact-checking reputation), not his stances/interpretations (as this is described above) if you deny it), but Palumbo was -- I believe (check me, James or Arbitrators) -- only being edited/fact-checked by West -- and AFAIK West DOES have a GOOD REPUTATION for -- unlike WaPo, as listed above -- unless you can give us some example of ppl challenging West's fact-checking (without West rebutting), as WaPo is described above as being unreliable for fact-checking).

WaPo's source -- Collingwood -- is also published, but with POOR reputation for fact-checking when he self-pusblishes -- NECESSITATED AS HE FAILED TO GET PEER REVIEW (even from his own Alma Matter, which really says something; see e.g. the case of ElHaik being rebutted by his own source, geneticist Behar, and >20 of Behar's colleagues, when ElHaik was doing "research" outside of his specialty (sports/health applications of DNA), as a brand-new PhD grad with no seasoned vets helping him, then PUBLICLY DECLARED A POLITICAL PURPOSE for his genetics research when Neo-Nazis & Muslims then funded him after his own uni refused to fund or publish his pseudo-science (Politicized "science" = junk science). )

Basically, Collingwood is -- by WP:RS#self-published standards -- putting on his political-hack hat (same hat as Palumbo is wearing) when you and he resort to trying to attach his university's name to self-published (unscholarly, un-fact-checked by PEERS -- our fellow scientists) articles.

More than 80% of social-"science" papers were recently found, in 2 separate meta-studies, to NOT EVEN BE FOLLOWING THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD (even when they ARE peer-reviewed), in contrast to those of us in the EXACT Sciences. Collingwood's resort to a SELF-PUBLISHED study -- which also hasn't met The Scientific Method because no researchers have REPEATED Collingwood's results -- was rightfully & logically criticized by Palumbo and others, and Collingwood's "error" (verifiable, falsifiable fabrication) is easily verified in Collingwood's own graphs, as Palumbo called out -- isn't a case of political "science" major Collingwood helping that situation of rife lack of scientific stds in the social sciences community, and...

...and WP guidelines (self-pub, fringe, etc) are meant to address such "science" when a scientist puts on his "politico" hat like ElHaik or Palumbo.

WaPo's poor reputaion for fact-checking, also, is as discussed in #2, above.

I personally wouldn't mind both POLITICIZED sources -- Congressman West/Palumbo and WaPo/Collingwood -- being in the article if it meets WP guidelines for denoting when a source is biased; James or an Arb committee may feel differently. But as a source PRETENDING TO BE scientific, but lacking peer-review, repeatability, etc, Collingwood's SELF-PUB is actually WORSE than a Congressman making the opposing claims, because any normal person knows a Congressman is politicized; WaPo and Collingwood try to give themselves a scientific air of authority, in contrast, when they are anything but -- regarding this SELF-PUB "research," not necessarily any of Collingwood's other work.

You can discuss that with James or varied forms of ArbCom's; if I haven't convinced you, you should open the lowest level of an Arbitration request rather than continuing yoour edit-warring, as you were edit-warring before James, i.e. 3RR violation before James or I made any 3RR violations. I should have checked that I was even rebutting (using Palumbo/West as source) REAL research (that which meets WP:RS standards = "real," i.e. I agree as a scientist myself with WP's WP:RS page, and the WP:scholarliness page that James cited) before I had even bothered to look for rebuttals.

97.98.86.66 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no interest in debating the veracity of WaPo vs Allen West's website. I implore you to take your concerns to the reliable sources noticeboard. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But this is neutral??

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pinging WClarke who created the map. I noticed because my city, San Francisco, should be green on there, but at the default resolution the entire state of California is not shaded at all. Funcrunch (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: Thank you for pointing this out. If you go to the direct link of the file, you can see the actual shading of the SVG, along with shading in yellow of states that declare all of their county jails as sanctuaries from illegal immigrants. I don't know of your knowledge and skill level with SVGs and images, but all SVGs on Wikipedia/Commons before being displayed are rendered into PNGs using librsvg, though the program is known to have bugs, and when using certain syntax it doesn't render correctly. After reading this, I already know the problem: in the CSS at the top of the SVG when coloring some counties, like those in California and Colorado, I used CSS attribute selectors, which are newer than traditional selectors and evidently are not supported by librsvg, causing the display error. I don't have time right this second to fix the entire file, but the last revision shows what is described in the caption on the page, so I'll revert it. Thanks. WClarke (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, particularly as to the motivation.--Nowa (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was sourced, since revised. DonFB (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It's attributed to CAP, and the study is covered by reliable news outlets. No problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from your talk page, you are no credible person yourself, Snooganssnoogans. A report from an openly leftist rag is not a credible source. 2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:18D3:A518:512F:B46B (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

https://gov.texas.gov/es/news/post/operation-lone-star-spotlights-sanctuary-city-hypocrisy-buses-over-11000-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

https://www.foxnews.com/media/homan-slams-mayor-bowser-mayor-adams-immigration-hypocrisy-crime-sanctuary-cities

National security analyst: D.C. officials blaming border states for 'emergency' is 'ultimate hypocrisy'

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/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

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-dc-sanctuary-city-policies-come-back-haunt-them-feud-texas-arizona

National Guard activated to assist migrants flown to Martha’s Vineyard by DeSantis

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/national-guard-migrant-marthas-vineyard-desantis-b2168915.html

The political fallout of Martha's Vineyard

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/massachusetts-playbook/2022/09/16/marthas-vineyard-fallout-00057155

‘Height Of Hypocrisy’: Sheriffs Hammer Liberal Sanctuary Cities For Complaining About Illegal Migrants

https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/16/height-of-hypocrisy-border-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

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-governor-chicago-mayor-blasted-hypocrisy-sending-migrants-bussed-texas-suburbs

Democrats' hypocrisy over migrant flights called out by GOP lawmaker: It's OK if they do it

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-hypocrisy-migrant-flights-called-out-gop-lawmaker-ok-they-do-it

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, but the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to promote idiotic and sociopathic publicity stunts by some politicians. Also I doubt all these sources accuse these cities of "hypocrisy" (sic). This source does not contain the word "hypocrisy". You're also listing some obviously unreliable sources there.

So. No. Volunteer Marek 20:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the free version of the Washington Post article. It's true that it does not include the word "hypocrisy." However, after Martha's Vineyard declared itself a "sanctuary city," it claimed that it did not have any room for 50 undocumented immigrants who had been sent there by Republicans from another state. But when this happened, the summer vacation season was over, so there were thousands of empty rooms where they could have stayed. But instead of taking them in, Martha's Vineyard had them shipped out to Cape Cod. This article from CNN also mentions it.

The state of California has displayed similar hypocrisy: https://www.abc10.com/article/news/politics/newsom-california-overwhelmed-immigrant-crisis/103-deaec97d-9e59-4474-ad60-0c04e1271ab2

So has the city of Chicago: https://abc7chicago.com/migrants-bused-to-chicago-elk-grove-village-texas-governor/12225038/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquirrelHill1971 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This source does use the word "hypocrisy" to describe the actions of sanctuary cities. https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-lucille-roybal-allard-archive-immigration-43ad0cf1cb8f4dc29868014111ab124a

Plenty of the sources from above are reliable.

This subject is notable enough and reliably sourced enough that it should be cited in the article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're requesting that a particular opinion be added to this article. An article must first have the factual context that someone is reacting to. If their opinions are notable and well sourced, they might be added to the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum to promote a particular viewpoint. See Martha's Vineyard migrant crisis and Talk:Martha's Vineyard migrant crisis for more context and discussion. Fettlemap (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarifications and links. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-plans-resume-busing-migrants-233300477.html SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 05:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post, May 2, 2023: "Migrants find no space in crowded hotels leased by D.C., council members say"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GCsYkx74qQkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/02/migrants-dc-hotels-buses-closed/&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

New York Times, May 7, 2023: "Suburbs Are Furious at Adams’s Plan to Send Migrants to Their Hotels"

https://web.archive.org/web/20230513075336/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/07/nyregion/rockland-migrants-shelter-nyc.html

Washington Post, May 10, 2023: "New York City sticking with migrant hotel plan despite pushback from suburbs"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:xDrdzPgqzVUJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2023/05/10/immigration-asylum-new-york/9d0951da-ef6c-11ed-b67d-a219ec5dfd30_story.html&cd=12&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

New York Times, May 10, 2023: "Open-Armed Chicago Feels the Strains of a Migrant Influx"

https://web.archive.org/web/20230513023208/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/10/us/chicago-migrants-title-42.html

Washington Post, May 11, 2023: "Amid expected surge of border crossings, a costly predicament for D.C."

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:a93QFUD5aIkJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/05/11/dc-migrant-buses-immigration-tite-42-costs/&cd=21&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

NBC New York, May 13, 2023: "Wedding Parties Lose Hotel Rooms to Migrants Bused to Suburbs; County Fights NYC Plan"

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/migrant-crisis/wedding-parties-lose-hotel-rooms-to-migrants-bused-to-suburbs-county-fights-nyc-plan/4330771/

Washington Post, May 14, 2023: "NYC converts hotels to shelters as pressure mounts to accommodate asylum seekers"

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AxBGXBu-nZwJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/14/new-york-city-migrants-asylum-hotels/33bd4338-f20c-11ed-b67d-a219ec5dfd30_story.html&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

NBC New York, May 15, 2023: "‘NYC Is Out of Space': Frustration Mounts Over School Housing for Migrants "

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/migrant-crisis/nyc-is-out-of-space-frustration-mounts-over-migrants-being-housed-in-nyc-schools/4335049/

Politico, May 15, 2023: "Schools are the latest epicenter of the migrant crisis"

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/new-york-playbook/2023/05/15/schools-are-the-latest-epicenter-of-the-migrant-crisis-00096880

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"

https://web.archive.org/web/20230519011611/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/18/nyregion/migrant-housing-shelters-nyc.html

Seattle Times, May 22, 2023, "NYC congressional leaders call on city universities to turn their dorms into migrant housing this summer"

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nyc-congressional-leaders-call-on-city-universities-to-turn-their-dorms-into-migrant-housing-this-summer/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 21:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a pile of synthesis, adding multiple sources saying related things to imply a novel conclusion, unstated in any one source. I don't think it's appropriate to use all of this stuff to force a hypocrisy narrative, especially since your stance would also be supporting sociopathic political stunts. Binksternet (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every one of these news articles is about how self described "sanctuary cities" are complete and total hypocrites. Actions speak louder than words. This is highly notable, and very reliably sourced. It should be included. SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I’d just remove it as it’s pretty clearly a case of false equivocation. Volunteer Marek 09:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put in a better version of what was there (I did remove it), then go for it. Volunteer Marek 09:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

As of 2024-10-14, the fourth paragraph of the introduction begins, "Studies on the relationship between sanctuary status and crime have found that sanctuary policies either have no effect on crime or that sanctuary cities have higher crime rates and weaker economies than comparable non-sanctuary cities", citing four references. Skimming those references, one said "no effect" while the other three said sanctuary cities were safer and at least one said the economy was better.

I've just rewritten that sentence so it more clearly states the research including brief quotes from three of the references cited. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]