Article Title
Abstract
American attitudes toward immigration shift with changes in the nation's economic and political climate. While waves of immigration to the United States are motivated by various factors, the extent to which immigrants are welcomed in the country does not consider these motivations. Rather, American perspectives of immigration vary by region and are informed by local economies and ideological majorities. Thus, while some localities work closely with federal immigration officials to facilitate federal regulatory schemes, other localities adopt policies that prohibit cooperation with federal immigration law, becoming "sanctuary cities" for undocumented immigrants. This Comment explores the constitutionality of a federal provision that attempts to subvert the ability of sanctuary cities to implement policies they believe promote trust and communication with local immigrant communities and which ultimately improve public safety. Analyzed within the framework of Tenth Amendment federalism and state sovereignty, this federal provision is an invalid infringement of states 'power to sustain sanctuary cities.
Recommended Citation
Hannah Michalove, Expanding Printz in the Sanctuary City Debate, 40 Campbell L. Rev. 237 (2018).