In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

250 Conservatives characterize sanctuary cities as “lawless,” “criminal,” “dangerous,” or “illegal” spaces that “harbor criminal aliens.” Following the election of Donald Trump as US president, liberal, progressive, and leftist anti-­ deportation activists have fought to pass new sanctuary city and state policies under a similar assumption that these are spaces of “resistance,” spaces where immigrants are “protected” or safe from deportation, abject spaces outside of the law, legally “exceptional ” spaces, spaces where rules are broken in a sort of governmental civil disobedience, liminal zones, “zones of indistinction,” or zones where emergent forms of “insurgent citizenship” are formed. However, sanctuary policies and sanctuary practices neither create a true sanctuary or safe zone from deportations nor make a city where everyone is safe from immigration authorities such as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Furthermore, they do not challenge sovereignty, citizenship, borders, nationhood, legality, or immigration­enforcement—that is, they don’t mount the social revolution needed globally to create true sanctuary for all people, for ending the violence of bordering practices everywhere, and for creating a world of free movement. Sanctuary cities have been part of a ­ deportation-­ filled and ­ border-­ filled world for over three decades, allowing for federal immigration enforcement activities to occur within their jurisdictions unimpeded. Their part has not been to stop these activities, but to decline to participate in creating dragnet mass deportation programs that incorporate local employees. Sanctuary cities have been the primary and essential, not exceptional, form of municipal government in the United States around which services are provided to all residents, including migrants. Sanctuary cities have included San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Chicago , Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, and Los Angeles, among hundreds of other jurisdictions. These are mainstream cities divided by rampant inequality, racism, police brutality, and exploitation of undocumented workers, where the effects of borders hang high in the minds of all those who conservative media believes the government is supposedly “harboring.” Chapter 16 Sanctuary Cities and Sanctuary Power Peter Mancina Sanctuary Cities 251 Sanctuary cities are those where local government protects the budgets, resources , and functionality of the criminal justice system, courts, police agencies, and­jails—institutionsthathavesystematicallyunderminedtheself-­determination of black and brown communities, including immigrant communities. A sanctuary city governance ­ strategy—which I refer to as sanctuary ­power—aims to ensure municipal government efficiency, to define the roles and procedures of various state agencies in relation to one another, and to allocate governmental resources appropriately, in addition to reducing city-­ assisted deportations and helping only certain migrants it finds acceptable in its society. Sanctuary power is about making sure that a single project of federal immigration enforcement does not interfere with municipal services and population ­management—and therefore undermine the proper functioning of the state itself. As such, sanctuary power is not a governance strategy of undermining borders, citizenship, or immigration enforcement, or creating safe spaces for migrants. Citizenship, borders, and police brutality are maintained within sanctuary cities. Sanctuary power aims to first and foremost maintain the operability of government in a globalized world where unauthorized migrants and their ­ mixed-­ status families who are under attack by the federal government make up significant portions of city populations. In sanctuary cities, certain bordering practices of city ­ governments—immigration-­ related detentions, information sharing, and transfer of custody for the purpose of ­ deportations—and federal classifications are sidelined or minimized, not erased. In sanctuary cities new political identities such as “resident regardless of immigration status” and new practices of the ­ state—immigration-­ status-­ blind public benefits provision practices and city­deportation-­assistance ­practices—are added onto the existing political landscape. From this ­ state-­ centric frame, the policy behaviors of sanctuary city legislators, officials, and frontline workers can be seen primarily in terms of protectionism of the integrity and functionality of local government and only secondarily or perhaps merely politically in terms of benevolent humanitarianism toward migrants. Nonetheless, policy makers, executives, and workers declining to do nonmandatory favors to assist the deportation regime according to city policy doesaccomplish a certain form of resistance to bordering practices, which this chapter outlines . Furthermore, this chapter argues that the ­ quasi-­ immigration-­ status-­ blind administration and governance model that sanctuary cities have experimented with and developed over the past thirty years provides us with a preliminary model of what governance without borders, nations, or citizenship could look like. How Sanctuary Cities Work In order to locate, detain, and deport undocumented people more efficiently, US federal immigration authorities for the past several decades have increasingly 252 Mancina sought the assistance of...


Additional Information

Related ISBN
MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.