When Cities Refuse to Cooperate: Why Sanctuary Policies Actually Work

At 10 p.m. on June 27, 1980, Jose Artiga got the call that would force him to abandon everything. El Salvador’s death squads were hunting the 23-year-old engineering student for the crime of attending political protests. Within hours, he was fleeing across borders, first to Guatemala, then Mexico, and finally to the United States—landing in Austin, Texas, before eventually settling in California in 1982. His destination: one of the world’s first sanctuary cities.

This isn’t just one man’s story of survival. It’s the origin moment for an entire movement that’s now reshaping how American cities approach immigration enforcement. In 1971, Berkeley, California declared itself a“refuge city”for Vietnam War conscientious objectors. But in the 1980s, responding to the wave of Central American refugees escaping violence that the Reagan administration refused to recognize, Berkeley extended that sanctuary principle into something revolutionary: a city that would refuse to help federal agents hunt down undocumented people.

The policy is deceptively simple. Sanctuary cities don’t ask about immigration status when people use municipal services. They limit—or refuse—to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. No complicated bureaucracy, no moral grandstanding. Just a clear message: we’re not going to be immigration’s enforcement arm. Cities like San Francisco and Santa Fe, New Mexico followed, and what started as a handful of defiant jurisdictions has grown into hundreds.

So does it actually work? The data is remarkably consistent. A 2020 study analyzing ICE deportation data found that between 2010 and 2015, sanctuary policies cut deportations of people with no criminal convictions in half. A 2017 analysis of U.S. cities from 2000 through 2014 found no link between sanctuary policies and crime increases—and in some cases, sanctuary cities had lower crime rates. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center found sanctuary jurisdictions had higher median household income, less poverty, and stronger employment rates than non-sanctuary cities.

The economics tell an even bigger story. Research from the Cato Institute found that over the last 30 years, immigrants have reduced federal, state, and local budget deficits by $14.5 trillion combined—including $1.7 trillion from undocumented immigrants alone. Yet sanctuary cities face increasing hostility. In August, the Department of Justice threatened to sue 35 sanctuary jurisdictions, and enforcement under the Trump administration has become increasingly aggressive and indiscriminate.

The protection these policies offer goes beyond statistics. When undocumented people aren’t afraid of deportation for reporting a crime or accessing city services, they’re more likely to actually report crimes and cooperate with local police. Local law enforcement can focus on what they’re actually supposed to do—enforce state and local laws against violent and property crimes—rather than chasing civil immigration violations that have no victim. Cities are increasingly codifying these protections into municipal law, making them legally enforceable. Berkeley did this last year, and Mayor Adena Ishii was clear about why:“We want people to feel safe reporting crimes to the police, without fear of deportation.”

But here’s the reality: sanctuary cities can only do so much. Jose Artiga, who founded the humanitarian nonprofit Share El Salvador, argues that local protection alone isn’t enough. The real solution requires addressing why people are fleeing in the first place—something that demands action from the federal government and the countries sending aid and influence to Central America. Sanctuary policies create safety within city limits, but they don’t solve the broken immigration system or the conditions that force people to risk everything to survive.

What sanctuary cities do prove is this: when communities decide people matter more than partisan politics, measurable good things happen. Crime doesn’t spike. The economy doesn’t collapse. Instead, people feel safe enough to participate in their communities, report crimes, and contribute openly to the cities they call home. The question isn’t whether sanctuary policies work. The question is: why aren’t more cities willing to try?