Bill Overview
Title: Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act
Description: This bill prohibits a sanctuary jurisdiction from receiving grants under certain Economic Development Assistance Programs and the Community Development Block Grant Program. Under the bill, a sanctuary jurisdiction is a state or local government that has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts (1) information sharing with another government entity about an individual's immigration status, or (2) compliance with a lawfully issued Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detainer request or notification of release request. When complying with a DHS-issued detainer, a state or local government shall be deemed to be acting as an agent of DHS with all authority available to DHS officers and employees. The bill also limits the legal liability of a state or local government for complying with a detainer.
Sponsors: Sen. Toomey, Patrick [R-PA]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill targets sanctuary jurisdictions, which are entities that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
- Current residents of sanctuary jurisdictions may be directly affected, as the jurisdictions will lose federal funding.
- Immigrant populations, particularly those undocumented, will likely experience significant impact as they rely on sanctuary policies for protection.
- Residents who benefit from programs funded by the Economic Development Assistance Programs and the Community Development Block Grant Program will be affected.
- These funding programs support a variety of urban development, housing, and economic initiatives, affecting low-income and minority communities particularly.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to cut federal funding to jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement policies. Thus, it targets sanctuary cities where local governments have chosen to limit their cooperation.
- The individuals most likely affected are immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, and residents of these cities who benefit from programs funded by federal grants that will be cut.
- Since the policy impacts only jurisdictions that oppose federal immigration policies, the American population affected will be localized within these regions, particularly affecting major metropolitan areas known to be sanctuary cities.
- Many residents in sanctuary cities are dependent on federal grants for urban development, community health, education, and housing programs, so the loss of these funds will have varying degrees of impact based on individual reliance on these services.
Simulated Interviews
Construction Worker (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about what will happen if my city loses funding. My job sometimes depends on projects funded by these grants.
- I'm also concerned about increased ICE raids and how it will affect my family's safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
Non-Profit Worker (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If funding is cut, it could severely impact the community programs I help run, affecting a lot of families.
- I believe this policy is more harmful than helpful and instills fear in our community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Austin, TX)
Age: 35 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I fear losing good workers due to increased deportations, and the community losing funding could hurt local spending.
- This could negatively impact all businesses if people are afraid to go out or lose income.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've lived here all my life, and I'm concerned about what losing these funds will mean for our city, especially schools and public services.
- I fear this will set back years of community progress and integration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 7 |
Police Officer (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it will help enforce immigration laws and improve overall safety.
- However, I also see potential issues if funding is lost for community programs that help keep youth out of trouble.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Social Worker (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- If our funding is cut, it will dramatically impact our ability to support the city's most vulnerable populations.
- People here depend on these services for survival and stability.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
IT Specialist (Boston, MA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a negative move that will disrupt the positive community and work environment.
- Many of my colleagues and friends could face unnecessary challenges because of this.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 8 |
City Planner (Denver, CO)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Losing this funding would mean cutting essential housing and development projects, harming the communities that need it most.
- City projects depend heavily on budgets that integrate federal aid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 7 |
Waiter (Miami, FL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could split up families and tear apart our neighborhoods.
- Everyone I know is scared and anxious about what might happen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 5 |
Teacher (Portland, OR)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We fear losing crucial funding that supports our educational programs and services for ESL students and underprivileged kids.
- The policy poses a risk to all the progress our education system has made.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $-1000000000 (Low: $-1500000000, High: $-500000000)
Year 2: $-1050000000 (Low: $-1550000000, High: $-550000000)
Year 3: $-1100000000 (Low: $-1600000000, High: $-600000000)
Year 5: $-1200000000 (Low: $-1700000000, High: $-700000000)
Year 10: $-1300000000 (Low: $-1800000000, High: $-800000000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Potential legal challenges might alter effective implementation and costs.
- The identification and certification of sanctuary jurisdictions require clear, consistent criteria and monitoring.
- Reallocation of funds should maintain or improve the effectiveness of federal investments.