North Carolina Republicans Introduce Bill to Hold 'Sanctuary Cities' Accountable

 

A sanctuary city is a term used to describe a city or jurisdiction that does not fully cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This means local law enforcement agencies may choose not to notify ICE when they have arrested someone who is in the country illegally. Some cities and states have these policies to encourage trust between local police and immigrant communities, while others argue it makes communities less safe.

 

 

In Western North Carolina, Buncombe County (which includes Asheville) and Watauga County (which includes Boone) have been identified
as sanctuary jurisdictions. In these areas, local law enforcement may limit cooperation with ICE detainer requests, meaning that individuals who are suspected of being undocumented immigrants may be released rather than being turned over to federal immigration authorities. Critics of sanctuary policies argue that this can lead to potential safety risks if individuals with criminal records are not deported.

 

 

The Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act would allow victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants to sue any city, county, or state that failed to comply with ICE’s deportation orders. If a sanctuary city releases an undocumented immigrant who then commits a crime, the victim (or their family) would be able to take legal action against the local government.

 

 

One of the key questions about this bill is whether a city can be sued based on an undocumented immigrant’s arrest or only after a conviction.

ICE detainer requests usually apply to individuals who have been arrested, not necessarily convicted. This means the bill could allow lawsuits even if the person had not yet been found guilty of any crime at the time of their release.

If the bill requires a conviction first, it would prevent lawsuits based on people who were wrongly accused. However, this could also mean that lawsuits would take longer, as cases must go through the full legal process before a lawsuit can be filed.

 

If the bill allows lawsuits even if the individual was only arrested, it raises legal concerns about presumption of innocence—meaning a city could be sued even if the person was later found innocent.

 

 

The bill’s sponsors believe that local governments should work with federal immigration officials to prevent crimes from happening in the first place. Senator Thom Tillis argued that ignoring ICE requests allows dangerous individuals to stay in communities where they could commit crimes. Congressman Chuck Edwards added that cities should be held responsible if their policies lead to preventable harm.

 

 

Critics of the bill argue that sanctuary policies help protect immigrant communities and make it easier for undocumented individuals to report crimes without fear of deportation. They also say the bill could face legal challenges, as it raises questions about whether cities and states can be held financially responsible for crimes committed by individuals.

 

 

The bill could face challenges under the Tenth Amendment, which protects states' rights and prevents the federal government from forcing local jurisdictions to enforce federal immigration laws.

 

Cities might argue that holding them financially responsible for crimes committed by individuals violates legal precedent—governments are generally not liable for the actions of private citizens.

 

 

If passed, cities and states could face costly lawsuits from victims or their families, leading to huge settlements or financial strain on taxpayers.
Smaller towns might struggle to afford legal defenses, forcing them to either cut public services or comply with ICE requests regardless of their policies.

 

 

Opponents argue the bill could lead to racial profiling, where law enforcement disproportionately targets certain communities.
Some fear it could pressure police to detain more people based on immigration status, even if they have not committed serious crimes.

 

 

Many local law enforcement agencies lack the training and resources to enforce federal immigration laws effectively.
Complying with ICE detainer requests could divert resources away from local policing efforts, possibly increasing crime in other areas.

 

 

The bill could set a dangerous legal precedent, where governments can be sued for any policy decision that indirectly contributes to a crime.
Cities could be sued for releasing individuals on bail or parole, leading to endless litigation against local governments.

 

 

If passed, this law would apply to all states and cities in the U.S., not just North Carolina. Any city that does not honor ICE’s requests to detain undocumented immigrants could face lawsuits if a released individual later commits a felony.

 

 

The bill will now go through the legislative process, where it must be debated, voted on in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and signed by the President before becoming law. It is expected to spark debate in Congress, as immigration enforcement remains a highly controversial issue.

 

 

The Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act is part of a larger national debate about immigration enforcement and local government policies. Supporters say it will make communities safer, while critics argue it could discourage trust between police and immigrant communities and lead to unintended legal and financial consequences. 

 

As this bill moves forward, it will be important to watch how lawmakers and the public respond.