This story was originally published by THE CITY. Sign up to get the latest New York City news delivered to you each morning.
By Gwynne Hogan, and Rachel Holliday Smith
The January brawl between NYPD officers and migrants in Times Square that went viral has sparked a national firestorm over long-standing sanctuary city policies that restrict cooperation between federal authorities and local law enforcement.
Republicans seized on the attack to argue that sanctuary laws should be changed. Mayor Eric Adams asked the City Council to reexamine them, but the Council defended the protections, saying they have no bearing on the incident in hand.
But what does it even mean to be a “sanctuary city”?
Here’s a guide to the policies that together define the “sanctuary city” idea in New York City and how they impact immigrants, whether they’re wrapped up in criminal proceedings or not.
What does it mean for New York City to be a sanctuary city?
Though New York City has some laws on the books that aim to protect immigrants from certain types of law enforcement (more on that below), the concept of being a “sanctuary city” isn’t really a hard-and-fast legal edict. It’s more of a collection of policies, combined with political will, that guide how local and federal authorities interact.
Generally, when politicians, advocates and critics use the term “sanctuary city,” they are referring to the policies put forward by local governments that limit how (or if) they share information with federal immigration authorities about non-citizens. Sanctuary city policies aim to shield those people from what their allies call unfair or unwarranted law enforcement actions like arrests, detention or deportation.
Defenders of the city’s sanctuary protections say it’s a vital public safety measure that allows undocumented but law-abiding immigrants to report crimes, seek medical help, and go to court — without fear they’ll be turned over to immigration authorities. Some evidence suggests sanctuary localities are safer than non-sanctuary ones and lower poverty and crime rates on average.
Nationally, “sanctuary city” policies have been a source of debate and controversy for decades, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the issue became even more heated after 2017, as the Trump administration increased immigration enforcement.
As of 2020, at least 172 localities in the U.S. have some kind of sanctuary policy, the CRS said, citing the Center for Immigration Studies.
What are the sanctuary laws in New York City?
The creation of local sanctuary policies in New York City go back at least to 1989 when then-Mayor Ed Koch signed an executive order creating the city’s first sanctuary policy, which bars city officials from sharing information about immigrants unless it’s regarding a criminal matter, or there’s express written permission by an individual immigrant to do so. The order was reissued by Mayor David Dinkins, and again by Mayor Rudy Guiliani.
The first city law limiting the local government’s cooperation with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — as opposed to an executive order — came in 2011. In 2014, under then-Mayor Bill de Blasio, city lawmakers expanded the protections, limiting when and how the city’s police and correction departments could cooperate with ICE.
The 2014 bill did two main things: It removed ICE’s office that had operated on Rikers Island and all city jail facilities, and it barred the NYPD or the Department of Correction from honoring “detainer requests” from ICE — i.e. an official call to detain a certain person for possible future deportation — with some notable exceptions, including for people with recent convictions for some violent or serious crimes, or people on the federal terrorist watch list, and when ICE officials had obtained a judicial warrant.
In 2018, de Blasio and the police department’s leadership went further by issuing guidance citywide mandating that any requests for help from federal immigration officials would be “reviewed in advance by senior city agency officials” to determine that they were not made to assist with deportation.
Does that mean ICE can’t make arrests in New York City?
No. ICE can arrest anyone who is not a U.S. citizen, explained criminal defense attorney Robert Osuna, who has extensive experience with clients in immigration proceedings.
“ICE can arrest anybody they believe is not a United States citizen. It is an extraordinary, extraordinary authority they have,” he said.
Last year, for example, ICE arrested 9,229 people in New York City mostly with no criminal violations beyond their immigration status, according to federal data. Of those arrests, 729 of them were of someone who had a pending criminal charge or who had been convicted. In addition, ICE deported 439 people from New York City last fiscal year.
While ICE can enact arrests on its own accord within the five boroughs, it has to do so largely independently from the NYPD and the Corrections Department. Before the 2014 sanctuary protections, ICE could request an immigrant be held by the NYPD and the DOC and those agencies could comply. But since then, the person has to have been convicted of a “violent or serious crime,” and ICE needs a judicial warrant, among other carve outs.
In practice, city officials now rarely detain people at the behest of ICE, though it does occasionally occur. In one notable case a man arrested for jaywalking in 2019 was mistakenly handed over to ICE and nearly deported for it.
Last fiscal year the Department of Corrections received 201 ICE detainer requests and honored 10 of them, according to an annual report. In the previous fiscal year, the NYPD got 109 ICE detainer requests and didn’t honor a single one.
ICE officials in New York have said getting a judicial warrant is difficult in the “overburdened federal courts,” and that they rely on media reports in order to nab the most serious offenders. Kenneth Genalo, the director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement lamented, at a Feb. 5 press conference, that the sanctuary city laws mean instead of taking custody of someone already being held by the NYPD or the DOC, “we now have to go out into the community and the streets where unfortunately the criminals have the upper hand.”
Do sanctuary protections mean the NYPD don’t arrest or charge certain immigrants charged with crimes?
No. In New York City, they get processed the way any other person would regardless of their immigration status.
“Sanctuary policies have no bearing at all on how crime is prosecuted,” City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said at a Thursday press conference. “They don’t conceal or shelter people from detection, nor do they shield people from deportation or prosecution for criminal activities.”
For example, the NYPD arrested the 15-year-old boy who allegedly shot a tourist and fired on a police officer last week in Times Square following an apparent shoplifting attempt.
In some cases, the person’s immigration status could impact the charges certain district attorney’s levy against them. In 2017, for example, Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez said his office would weigh immigration consequences when bringing charges depending on the circumstances, as certain convictions virtually assure deportation.
Regardless of how a local criminal case plays out, if the person charged is out in the community on bail or bond while the proceeding is ongoing, ICE could move to detain the person at any time.
What do critics of the sanctuary policies want to change?
In the fallout of the NYPD Times Square altercation, New York Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis and other Republicans are calling for the city to walk back the 2014 laws that keep the NYPD and the DOC from honoring most of ICE’s detainer requests.
Governor Kathy Hochul has also said “get them all and send them back,” implying the sanctuary policies should be circumvented all together. For his part, Mayor Eric Adams has expressed concerns about the law, without explicitly saying what if anything about them should change, deferring to the Council’s purview to change laws.
“Here’s the only area of the law that I think should be examined,” he said at a Feb. 5 press briefing. “You repeatedly commit felonies, dangerous crimes, if you’re found guilty, you should not be in our city.”
But that appears to be exactly how the law functions currently, per attorney Osuna. Any of the men charged with assaulting police officers in Times Square, if convicted, would likely be fasttracked for deportation.
“That is a joke,” he said. “Documented or undocumented migrants, you commit a felony and you go up state. If you go upstate, you’re definitely toast, 100% toast.”
For now at least, the council seems unlikely to consider walking the protections back. Speaker Adams offered a strident defense of the city’s sanctuary policies at a Feb. 8 briefing.
“These policies foster trust and cooperation between immigrant communities and local authorities which is critical to public safety,” she said. “Those opportunistically exploiting an incident that we should all be united in denouncing, to attack public safety policies, are advocating for policies that would make our city less safe.”
THE CITY is a nonprofit newsroom that serves the people of New York. Sign up for our SCOOP newsletter and get exclusive stories, helpful tips, a guide to low-cost events, and everything you need to know to be a well-informed New Yorker.
Get rid of sanctuary city status. It just costs us billions of dollars, takes away resources and housing, and increases crime.
If you read the article you would learn it does no such thing…
So you are saying it does not cost us anything? Why is the city looking to increase property taxes to fund housing for non citizens.
That’s the right to shelter law imposed on the city. Again, it’s all in the article. You should probably read it.
Whatever you say…
Did you read the article? It doesn’t do any of that.
So the city isn’t spending billions on migrants? Or cutting services? DAs don’t change migrants who commit crimes because they will be deported. But they charge US citizens. Democrats don’t want these people deported after they drive drunk and injure US citizens.
Peter, I’m a democrat and I want anyone who is here illegally to be deported.
The principals that underly Sanctuary policies are virtuous. But principals v. practice is the age old debate. In practice, it has gotten out of hand. The city is bleeding money. When we have to restrict library access for children of tax paying residents in order to remain a “Sanctuary City”, something is amiss. I believe that Adams acted with good intentions, but this is unsustainable. And frankly if I were an upstate resident I would not want to pay for it either.
The monetary obligations come from a ‘right to shelter’ in the State constitution and have nothing to do with sanctuary city.
Sanctuary city enables victims to come forward without fear of deportation.
To the extent that this applies to perpetrators the rules should change. But a victim of wage theft or of domestic violence or of any other crime ought to be able to report it and testify in court without worrying about being deported.
Period.
At this point it’s well-understood that if choose NYC as a destination they will be sheltered. It is also well-understood that in addition to free housing there is zero chance that you they will be turned over to ICE. These two facts compliment each other greatly and most certainly influence their decision to choose NYC as a destination. The monetary obligations are a result of both things.
In other words, “sanctuary city” is yet another misunderstood and misconstrued term politicians, pundits and other shameless opportunists use to whip up xenophobes. Got it.
Or maybe said another way “sanctuary city” means laws are not enforced. Get it?
Sanctuary status is different than the City’s obligation to provide shelter.
A jurisdiction can be “sanctuary” but not be obligated to provide shelter.
Per 1980s lawsuits, the City is obligated to provide shelter to anyone who needs it regardless of City residency – whether from out of state or from out of the country.
Thanks, answers the question I asked below.
I agree with those who think that we need to get rid of the obligation of the citizens to pay for shelter for whomever wants it, whoever arrives from wherever. We New Yorkers will be paying for the equivalent of the entire population of Venezuela at this rate.
Reporting a crime and engaging in a crime are so different that it is hard to understand why the law is not enforced. Certainly, there are millions of dollars used in outreach to illegal communities explaining this. If you are here without legal status and you commit any crime whether it is drunk driving, petty theft, or a felony. You should be held without bail. Have your day in court and whether convicted or pled out you should then be turned over to ICE and immediately deported. I am also confused as to why the rights of citizens are granted to illegal immigrants. They are not citizens and certainly, NYC should challenge whether or not the court decrees regarding the “right to shelter” apply to non-citizens. This should also apply to green card holders who are not supposed to be public charges unless according to the law they meet some very specific conditions
This article makes it sound as though the effect of Sanctuary City status is that local agencies won’t also act as agents for ICE. But what about the City’s obligation to pay housing and other expenses of migrants? Is THAT including under Sanctuary City legislation, or does that obligation have nothing to do with Sanctuary City status?
No. That’s the Right to Shelter STATE law!
The right to shelter is a result of a consent decree which dates back to 1981 and is entirely unrelated to Sanctuary City status.
I really appreciate the explanation of sanctuary city. However, I do not understand the use of the term “undocumented immigrant” for immigrants in the US without proper documentation. Primarily if someone overstays their visa or lloses an asylum case, there IS documentation. They are not undocumented, they are unauthorized.
The term “drug dealer” is now offensive as well. The proper term is now “unauthorized pharmacist”
You thought you were being sarcastic but no…
“ Among supporters of harm reduction, who point to the abysmal failure of the War on Drugs to do much beyond swell the U.S. prison population, the term “drug worker” is a suggested replacement for the term “drug dealer.”
https://sfstandard.com/2023/04/11/progressives-want-you-to-call-drug-dealers-drug-workers-now/#
Obviously a politically issued article. Putting all correct and incorrect facts aside. I believe we all can agree that ever since our Mayor (DeBlasio and Adams) reminded the world that we are a Sanctuary City, or way of living here in NYC has been affected. Attacks on our police; urinating in public, etc.
I know of people waiting two years to enter legally, as they seek to purse the American Dream. However, those entering illegally are being offered amnesty in cities like ours, as a reward for bypassing the system.
Here is an example of the City’s obligation to provide shelter to people who are not NYC residents – in this instance, one from out of state (Louisiana) and one from out of the U.S. (Switzerland).
Nothing to do with “sanctuary” or seeking “asylum” etc.
Please note this is a very sad child abuse fatality.
The young couple apparently met in Europe and then came to NYC in December 2022.
Their baby was born in February 2023. They were staying at a NYC homeless family shelter at the time of the fatality.
https://abc7ny.com/baby-found-dead-highbridge-bronx-major-deegan-expressway/13318486/
I agree with getting rid of sanctuary status. The migrants know they’ll be taken care of at my expense. The city is in chaos. As someone who immigrated here years ago–legally–I resent any aid given to illegal immigrants (and that includes NYC id cards). There are, indeed, people from other countries who are waiting to be approved. People who won’t be a burden on the citizens or increase the crime rate,
You’ve confused a right to shelter consent agreement with the meaning of “sanctuary city”, and you’re not alone in doing so in these comments.
What’s frustrating is that the article clearly spells out the difference. I assume half the commenters are just posting the same things they post all the time without actually bothering to read the article.
I remember during the Trump administration, Blue cities refused to cooperate at all with ICE. Now these same cities are begging ICE to come in and deport the illegal immigrants. How times change!
What mechanisms lead to busloads of penniless non-English speaking Texas border crossers ending up in Manhattan residences where NYC or NY State gives them money and sustenance? How does this actually work? Does someone greet the arriving buses at Port Authority and direct the passengers to Stratford Arms or a converted Brooklyn high school or wherever? Texas paid the bus company to bring them here. Can NY simply pay the bus company to take them back to Texas, or out to Newburgh, or anywhere besides the cramped confines of America’s largest city?
They get on the buses willingly in Texas because the Texas authorities, and what they hear online or whatever, tell them that they’ll get free stuff etc in NYC. So the migrants choose to be bused here. We have to take away that carrot of free stuff. But “put them on a bus to Texas” is not going to gain most migrants’ consent. How do you propose to force them out of the city except via ICE?.
LEGAL immigration…YES! ILLEGAL immigration…a big NO! Sanctuary cities/states facilitate & embrace the latter (illegal) and makes a mockery of the former (legal). . And no, it’s not the GOP’s fault. This administration is refusing to enforce existing immigration law and ignoring prior executive orders. Instead it is incorrectly reframing this as the GOP’s fault for not embracing the administration’s desired new law…and of course the MSM is parroting this nonsense. Truly shameful.
So Sanctuary status prevents NYC from cooperating with the Federal Government in matters of criminality and illegal immigrants but the same city wants the Federal Government to cooperate with them by giving them billions of dollars to house and care for those same illegal immigrants. That’s some next-level absurdity.
According to the article, the effects of Sanctuary City policy means that a D.A. will assign lesser charges to a non-citizen and higher charges to a citizen, for the same crime, to prevent the non-citizen from being deported. Putting aside discretionary powers of the D.A., I don’t understand how the D.A is allowed to illegally discriminate based on citizenship status, nor why the D.A. wishes to reward criminals who refuse to integrate lawfully to society, to the detriment and risk of everyone else.