The phrase’s meaning—or lack thereof—is belied by plans to crack down on cities that employ limiting policies. After a summer of bickering among Republican presidential candidates over who’s been more tolerant of “sanctuary cities”—former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s state is home to five cities on the Law Center list; under Rudy Giuliani, New York City vigorously challenged a federal law that could have endangered the city’s policy on sharing immigration information with the federal government—former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson weighed in on October 23, saying that if elected he would eliminate “sanctuary cities” by denying them federal funds. In his public remarks, Thompson painted with a broad brush, and described the cities as places that don’t “cooperate” with federal authorities.

But the Thompson campaign’s formal proposal is far narrower, a distinction essentially unnoted in press coverage. It merely proposes cutting off federal funds to cities that ignore a 1996 federal law that forbids placing restrictions on the maintenance of immigration data or sharing it with federal authorities.

According to the Law Center’s list, very few cities even flirt with this line. Most local policies steer clear of the question of record-keeping or information exchange, and instead limit the sort of questions that officers ask in routine stops, for instance. To avoid running afoul of the 1996 law, localities have included language explicitly recognizing that their policies limiting information exchange cannot be construed as an order to violate federal law.

Justice Department lawyers seem to agree that very few, if any, cities are in violation of the 1996 law. In a January 2007 report prepared for Congress by the department’s inspector general, analysts examined immigration cooperation—including compliance with the laws on the maintenance and sharing of immigration data—among jurisdictions receiving federal reimbursement for costs associated with jailing illegal aliens. Of the 752 localities that collect funds under the scheme, seven of the largest beneficiaries received extra scrutiny; of these, ICE officials only voiced complaints about San Francisco, but in the end conceded that the city met the “bare minimum” for compliance. The Justice Department, pointing to exemptions in that city’s policy, concluded that there wasn’t enough evidence to find the city in violation. Survey responses by another 99 localities found no violators.

Despite multiple requests by CJR, the Thompson campaign was unable to point to cities likely to lose funds under its plan, meaning that it was unable to identify cities meeting even Thompson’s own limited definition of a “sanctuary city.” Congressional proponents of similar proposals also failed to name cities when contacted by Alex Koppelman, who wrote on the plans for Salon in early October.

Despite the term’s flimsiness, it clearly holds currency among the electorate. Republicans, as The Washington Post recently noted, see an emerging wedge issue in immigration. According to an August poll by Rasmussen Reports, 58 percent of voters would favor cutting federal funds to “‘sanctuary cities’ that offer protection to illegal immigrants.” Republican state legislators in Michigan, New Jersey, and Wisconsin are considering legislation similar to a bill introduced by Colorado Republicans and enacted last year claiming to ban “sanctuary cities.”

“Sanctuary city” is a freighted term, impossible to define in a meaningful way, and broadly inapplicable to what is happening with immigration in American cities. It is exactly the kind of rhetoric that we need the press to take apart and explain—clearly and repeatedly—all the ways it is misused.

• 1
• 2