Sanctuary Cities and Dog-Whistle Politics
![handle is hein.journals/nejccc42 and id is 171 raw text is:
Sanctuary Cities and Dog-Whistle Politics
Christopher N. Lasch*
I. INTRODUCTION
Before July 1, 2015, the story of the Sanctuary City had been told in
three acts.
Act One saw the rise of the Sanctuary City as a response to the perceived
harshness of federal policy regarding El Salvadoran and Guatemalan refu-
gees during the 1980s. 1 San Francisco, for example, troubled by the low
rate of asylum grants to the Central American refugees,2 adopted a policy
in 1985 preventing local law enforcement from caus[ing] their deporta-
tion.3 Then in 1989, the city and county's Board of Supervisors passed an
ordinance preventing (unless otherwise required by law) law enforcement
from acquiring information about immigration status, or relaying such in-
formation on to federal immigration officials.4
Act Two saw the resurgence of the Sanctuary City in response to the rise
* Associate Professor, University of Denver Sturm College of Law. A special thanks is
owed to Carly McClain for her role in organizing this symposium, for her enthusiasm for the
topic of crimmigration, and for her valuable research, without which this piece would not
have been completed. Additional thanks to Tifanei Ressl-Moyer, the Editor-in-Chief, whose
patience, support, and encouragement were also prerequisites to the successful completion
of this piece. I also thank my colleagues from the Rocky Mountain Collective on Race,
Place, and Law, for providing an environment for nurturing and growing works such as this.
Two in particular were heavily influential here. First, my colleague Robin Walker Sterling
provides support, inspiration, and critical challenge to my thinking on a daily basis. She
gave me several important suggestions for improving this piece. I am also grateful to C6sar
Cuauht~moc Garcia Hemdndez for carefully reviewing my draft and supplying critical cor-
rections and suggestions. Finally, Kevin Johnson and Carrie Rosenbaum provided support
and effective, insightful critique. Despite all the assistance I received from others in produc-
ing this piece, all shortcomings remain mine alone.
I. Bill Ong Hing, Immigration Sanctuary Policies: Constitutional and Representa-
tive of Good Policing and Good Public Policy, 2 U.C. IRVINE L. REV. 247, 252-53 (2011).
2. Id. at 253.
3. Id.
4. Id. at 252; see also id. at 258-59 (describing New York City's sanctuary policy,
first promulgated by executive order in 1989).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/nejccc42&div=14&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Sanctuary Cities and Dog-Whistle Politics
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most