Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
country for 3 years can vote, although it is difficult for many immigrants to obtain
citizenship. Although this discussion on voting rights is largely based on western
world examples it is worth noting that this type of problem is even greater in the
cities of many oil-rich kingdoms in the Gulf States where non-residents are often a
majority, do much of the work, but who are dis-enfranchised and often exploited in
the conditions under which they work.
A related problem associated with the franchise concerns the right of access to
city services by immigrants. Even in western cities mistreatment of immigrants is
widespread and they often feel they will be penalised if they expose their conditions
to the authorities. Illegal immigrants, many with decades of residence, are in an
especially parlous situation, always fearful that they will be deported if they come
into contact with city officials or the police. This makes it easy for unscrupulous
employers to exploit their labour and for criminals to threaten them if they expose
illegal practices. In the United States a number of cities as well as smaller munici-
palities have enacted local ordinances that forbid the police or city employees to ask
for proof of immigrant status before providing welfare, declaring themselves to be
'Sanctuary Cities'.
The objective of the Sanctuary City concept is to allow any resident, irrespective
of citizenship status, to have full access to city services—especially social housing,
food banks, medical care, education—and should be encouraged to see police as
protectors, rather than agents of federal authorities with the power to deport. The
Sanctuary City idea was formally implemented by written ordinance in Los Angeles
in 1979 and subsequently spread to many cities. Other urban areas have chosen to
implement the policy by asking municipal employees to adopt the approach infor-
mally, rather than creating legislative backing. Despite the laudable humanitarian
aim of providing access to what amounts to redistributive justice to some of the
most vulnerable, there has been a reaction against the policies from many states
and even the U.S. federal government, especially in the case of those apprehended
for even minor crimes by the police, such as driving without a current licence or
littering, who have then been deported. Although a 1996 federal law requires local
governments to co-operate with the federal department that has jurisdiction over
immigration (currently the Department of Homeland Security), many Sanctuary
Cities have chosen to ignore the law as being an intrusion into state or local rights.
This has led the federal government to threaten to withhold tax dollars for vari-
ous social programmes. The debate continues over the sanctuary policy. Support-
ers of sanctuary cities deplore the federal intrusion into state and individual rights
and argue that existing community policing approaches already enable convicted
criminals to be deported. So the approach provides a crucial protection and ac-
cess to needed services to a very vulnerable group in cities who are not criminals.
Opponents, however, maintain that illegal migrants should not be allowed to stay.
In simple justice terms there seems little doubt that the Sanctuary City idea is a
laudable one, that of protecting the weak and certainly vulnerable, but the eventual
outcome of the ideas remains uncertain. What is worth noting is the fact that the
idea, like so many urban initiatives, is not really new. As noted earlier, in medieval
Europe many towns and cities provided sanctuary for those who fled their obliga-
