Human Services and Immigration

Advocating for Sanctuary Cities: The Battle Between the Federal and Local Governments Over Immigration Following the election of President Donald Trump, the federal government has made eliminating sanctuary cities a top homeland security priority by proposing to withhold their federal funding. Several sanctuary cities have ignored these threats and some have advocated for other cities to join them.

To gain some new insights into these trends, this paper provides an analysis of the social and political climate in which sanctuary cities and counties have existed and how advocacy has influenced human service programming over the last 10 years. A description of the respective advocates and stakeholders and an assessment of how their roles influence the advocacy process is followed by a discussion concerning how advocacy efforts have influenced current attitudes and policies towards issues that affect human services in this context.

A profile concerning how advocacy efforts have evolved and changed over time to influence the interaction of human systems and how advocacy efforts in relation to the delivery of human services have affected their status in the U.S. today is followed by an evaluation of the outcomes of the advocacy work and the impact on the access to services and community resources. Finally, a summary of the research and significant findings concerning sanctuary cities and the foregoing issues are presented in the conclusion.

Analysis of the social and political climate in which sanctuary cities have existed and how advocacy has influenced human service programming in the last 10 years Prior to the recent U.S. presidential election, a number of so-called sanctuary cities and even entire countries emerged in response to increased enforcement of immigration laws by the federal government in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the more recent threats of the Islamic State and other jihadist organizations.

Sanctuary cities are committed to providing what amounts to a safe haven for illegal immigrants by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities or consider individuals' immigration status when providing human services or administering law enforcement. For instance, according to the definition provided by Villazor (2010), the term "sanctuary city" is used "to describe some municipalities that have adopted sanctuary, non-cooperation, or confidentiality policies for undocumented residents, which may be viewed as inclusionary types of laws" (p. 574). The debate over sanctuary cities in the U.S.

has become more intensified in recent months following the election of President Trump (Lee, Omri & Preston, 2016). Indeed, just 5 days following his assumption of office, Trump issued an executive order that was intended to prevent federal funds from being used for sanctuary cities (Lee et al., 2016).

Although a federal judge has temporarily blocked the implementation of Trump's executive order as unconstitutional and ongoing advocacy efforts continue on behalf of sanctuaries, it is clear that the social and political environment in which sanctuary cities and counties have existed over the past decade is changing for the worse, due in large part to the continuing perceived threats by extremist Islamic groups as discussed further below.

Identification of the advocates and stakeholders and assessment of how their roles influence the advocacy process There have been several recent efforts by sanctuary city advocates, and these efforts have likewise become more intensified following Trump's election; there were some advocacy efforts by advocates, however, even before his election.

For instance, in North Carolina, advocates from the state's National Association for the Advancement of Colored People chapter vigorously opposed the implementation of a state law approved by the governor in 2015 that banned any city or country from declaring itself a sanctuary for illegal immigrants (Brown & Jones, 2016). Likewise, more than 500 faith-based organizations in the American South have joined forces to advocate in favor of sanctuary cities and countries (Sakuma, 2017).

Description concerning how advocacy efforts have influenced current attitudes and policies towards issues that affect human services On the one hand, advocacy efforts have positively influenced current attitudes and policies concerning those issues that affect the provision of human services. After all, the term "human services" is not legally qualified by the addition of "for legal humans only" but is rather applicable to all humans.

On the other hand, though, the relentlessness of terrorist groups in perpetrating violent acts has heightened the perception of their threat against soft targets in the United States. Moreover, advocates charge that many minority groups, including Hispanics and African-Americans, have been adversely affected by current efforts to ban sanctuary cities and countries in the U.S. (Lai, 2016).

Profile how advocacy efforts have evolved and changed over time to influence the interaction of human systems In recent years in general and recent months in particular, advocacy efforts on behalf of sanctuary cities have become focused on their constitutional legality in the face of continuing threats from the executive branch to "defund" their human service programming (Lee et al., 2016). These intensified advocacy efforts are a direct response to the newly elected president's stated efforts and recent attempts to outlaw sanctuary cities in the U.S.

In this regard, Sanchez (2017) emphasizes that, "The administration's threat could potentially result in slashing billions of dollars in federal grants that pay for a range of programs for domestic violence victims, drug treatment, missing and exploited children, services for the disabled, and boys' and girls' clubs" (para. 3). While advocates argue that sanctuary cities and counties do in fact cooperate with federal authorities, opponents counter that there is no longer any room for safe havens for potential terrorists in the U.S. today.

Evaluation of the outcomes of the advocacy work and the impact on the access to services and community resources The fact that there have been no reported instances of existing sanctuary cities or countries reversing their decision concerning their status following the issuance of Trump's executive orders indicates that advocacy work has been effective in underscoring the legal neutrality of human services and the moral obligation to provide marginalized residents of American communities with the same types of support services people need regardless of their immigration status.

It remains unclear, however, whether the current efforts by the executive branch to outlaw these communities will eventually have their desired effect despite advocacy efforts on their behalf (Lai, 2016). Conclusion Certainly, from one perspective, the argument can be made that.