Search

This quasi-experimental study examined whether "sanctuary city" policies are an effective mechanism for reducing mental health inequalities by immigrant origin status in Latinx populations in California. Ample evidence indicates that people experience mental health problems when restrictive immigration policies are imposed. It remains unclear whether sanctuary city policies can improve population mental health in the groups targeted by restrictive immigration policies: undocumented immigrant Latinxs, documented immigrant Latinxs, and native-born Latinxs. We combined data on California's 482 cities concerning whether and when they implemented a sanctuary policy with health data on approximately 142,000 adults, 6400 adolescents and 13,000 children from the multi-year California Health Interview Survey. After using propensity score matching to identify non-sanctuary cities comparable to sanctuary cities, we estimated respondent-level difference-in-differences models to determine whether sanctuary city policies had beneficial mental health effects on three age groups: adults, adolescents, and children during the period 2007-2018. There was a trend toward improved mental health in sanctuary cities after policy enactment, but the patterns of mental health in the three Latinx immigration sub-groups of each age group did not conform to our hypotheses. Buffering the adverse effects of harsh federal immigration policies may need to involve other approaches, such as expanded local mental health care access. We discuss these results in terms of alternative treatment interference, residents' policy awareness, the policy's capacity to address past health impacts, methodological issues, and potential policy momentum.

This paper seeks to understand policy in the City of New York which limits cooperation with federal authorities for purposes of immigration control. It does so by qualitatively analyzing a set of legal-administrative documents. The key, policy features are identified along with the interests and forces which shaped those features over time. An arsenal of supplemental, legal material as well as the findings of legal scholars are consulted for interpretation in hermeneutic fashion. Using a theoretical framework consisting of the structure of the legal system of the United States and it norms, plus certain immigration-related, national trends, this research concludes this policy is the legacy of an unbroken, bi-partisan lineage of administrations dating back to the 1980s – an evolving product of the tensions between the legal norms and the national trends. The policy reinforces sovereignty from the federal government, and it does so largely for purposes of constitutionality, administrative functionality and civil rights.

This paper seeks to understand policy in the City of New York which limits cooperation with federal authorities for purposes of immigration control. It does so by qualitatively analyzing a set of legal-administrative documents. The key, policy features are identified along with the interests and forces which shaped those features over time. An arsenal of supplemental, legal material as well as the findings of legal scholars are consulted for interpretation in hermeneutic fashion. Using a theoretical framework consisting of the structure of the legal system of the United States and it norms, plus certain immigration-related, national trends, this research concludes this policy is the legacy of an unbroken, bi-partisan lineage of administrations dating back to the 1980s – an evolving product of the tensions between the legal norms and the national trends. The policy reinforces sovereignty from the federal government, and it does so largely for purposes of constitutionality, administrative functionality and civil rights.

[Abstract]: This article draws on theoretical insights about bordering and citizenship as strategies for socially constructing difference and the scholarship on scalar challenges underlying contemporary bordering to analyze sanctuary cities in the United States and cities of refuge in Spain. We argue that these initiatives challenge and resist restrictive national migration policies from below, at the local level, with attention to their implications at the global scale. Such policies have the potential to create meaningful social change by 1) amplifying and producing political unity across socially constructed differences and 2) “scaling down” migration politics from the national to the local level and, simultaneously, “jumping scale” via reliance on human rights framings. We conclude that sanctuary city and city-of-refuge designations are not merely symbolic; instead, these designations can be conceived of as locally based, global repertoires of action that make positive contributions in pursuit of social justice.