Novel study maps changes in US immigration policy landscape since 9/11

In a comprehensive analysis of state and local sanctuary and anti-sanctuary policies, researchers have mapped the rapidly evolving legal immigration landscape in the US from 2000 to 2021. The dataset sheds light on trends in immigration legislation including “punitive” preemption, state government tendencies to enact laws that are ideologically opposed to the current federal administration, and conservative states using preemption to control liberal localities.

The findings of the study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine can be used to examine how changes in state and local immigration policies drive health outcomes among immigrants and their communities.

Immigrants account for over 14% of the US population. Under the Constitution, the federal government possesses the power to regulate immigration, including entry, status allocation, and naturalization. Although states and localities lack authority to regulate immigration directly, both levels of government can enact policies directing law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary and anti-sanctuary policies

Pro-immigration policies that limit law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration agencies—typically US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—are called “sanctuary policies.”

These are enacted to reduce the use of public resources for immigration enforcement, improve trust in law enforcement, and promote inclusion. Sanctuary jurisdictions are associated with having less crime and poverty, higher employment and income, and improved community trust.

In contrast, “anti-sanctuary policies” encourage or require law enforcement to cooperate with immigration authorities. Anti-sanctuary policies can negatively impact immigrants’ health by making immigrants feel unwelcome, increasing deportation risk, and are associated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic illness, and avoidance of safety net programs and health care.

“Immigration enforcement is a policy space that has rapidly evolved in the 21st century as more states and localities enacted such policies following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,” explains lead author Caroline Kravitz, Ph.D.(c), MPH, Department of Health Management and Policy, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University.

“We chose 2000 as our start year for local laws because many localities passed local immigration ordinances in the early 2000s in response to the terrorist attacks in New York City, and we wanted to capture these policies in our analysis.

“Given the current trend of states and localities actively legislating to encourage or deter immigration either in support of or in protest of the current administration’s aggressive anti-immigrant agenda, it is important to understand the historical landscape of these policies and how this may affect the health of the populations exposed to them.”

The investigators used rigorous policy surveillance methodology to identify state and local sanctuary and anti-sanctuary policies that were enacted between 2000–2021. This involved systematically searching state and municipal legislative databases and Department of Homeland Security 287(g) webpages. They identified 27 state anti-sanctuary policies (2009–2021), 25 state sanctuary policies (2009–2021), 24 city sanctuary ordinances (2000–2021), and 284 local 287(g) agreements (2000–2021).

Preemption

Instances where anti-sanctuary states prohibit sanctuary localities or when sanctuary states prohibit 287(g) agreements are considered explicitly preemptive policies.

Preemption is a legal mechanism whereby policies enacted at a higher level of government supersede policies enacted at a lower level of government. The researchers were interested in quantifying how preemption might advance or hinder health equity.

“The second Trump administration has been more aggressive in anti-immigrant policies, such as allowing raids in previously protected places and detaining people with valid visas,” says senior investigator Alina Schnake-Mahl, ScD, MPH, Department of Health Management and Policy, and Urban Health Collaborative, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University.

“These actions may encourage more sanctuary policies as jurisdictions seek to shield immigrants from risk, minimize fear, and protect immigrant health care access and general health. However, the federal government has threatened to withhold funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, functionally preempting governments from enacting such policies.”

Punitive preemption, a recently coined term for a legal mechanism in which states use the threat of punishment to encourage or discourage policy action at the local level, was common in state anti-sanctuary policies but not in state sanctuary policies.

“The rise in punitive preemption may demonstrate that the autonomy of local policymakers is shrinking, which could impact future local public health policymaking. During our study period, state anti-sanctuary policies were more often enacted during Democratic presidential administrations, and state and local sanctuary policies were more often enacted during Republican presidential administrations.”

Punitive preemption creates a chilling effect on local legislation because policymakers fear retribution. Given that many public health policies are enacted, and health care is often rendered, at the local level, this chilling effect may discourage local policies that improve health care access and drive health equity.

This is the first legal mapping study, of which the investigators are aware, that tracks both state and local sanctuary and anti-sanctuary policies across the years 2000–2021. Because this analysis ends in 2021, it does not identify current sanctuary or anti-sanctuary geographies. Still, this study can be used by future researchers seeking to conduct policy surveillance at the local level.

“Our study provides a strong foundation for quantitative analysis to more rigorously answer questions regarding the causal health impact of immigration policies—a policy area that is particularly salient in the US,” concludes Ms. Kravitz.