Messaging inclusion with consequence: U.S. sanctuary cities and immigrant wellbeing

Abstract

In the United States (U.S.), sanctuary cities have increasingly garnered public attention as places dedicated to increasing immigrant safety, inclusion, and health. These cities primarily rely on limiting local police cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to deter immigrant detention and deportation. However, sanctuary policies’ inability to extend immigrants’ legal rights and their reliance on police as ushers of sanctuary may complicate how these spaces attend to their stated goals. In this paper, we examine how organizational workers conceptualize sanctuary, safety, and immigrant health and wellbeing within sanctuary cities. We draw on interviews with organizational workers in two sanctuary cities: Boston, Massachusetts and Seattle, Washington collected between February and August 2018. Our findings reveal that immigrants continue to face structural barriers to housing, safe employment, education, and healthcare within sanctuary cities with consequences to wellbeing. Workers’ definitions of safety draw on interconnected structural exclusion that prevent immigrants from accessing basic needs and fail to account for historically rooted forms of racism and nativism. Organizational workers identified tensions between messages of sanctuary and what local sanctuary policies offer in practice, providing insight into consequences of institutionalizing a grassroots social movement. As organizational workers negotiate these tensions, they must develop everyday sanctuary practices to extend immigrant inclusion, safety, health, and wellbeing.