Sanctuary cities blatantly disregard the federal law of their country

The argument

The law is what keeps people safe. Because of the law, criminals do not get away with their crimes: thieves, murderers and abusers are punished for their wrongdoing, and that punishment delivers retribution on behalf of their victims. Without the law, on this view, society would be out of control — not because people are uniformly dangerous, but because the only thing standing between an intention and an act is the expectation of consequence. Sanctuary cities are said to overstep that law by allowing offenders to go unpunished. The objection is framed as one of consistency: aiding and abetting a criminal is itself against the law, so a city that positions itself between an offender and the enforcement of the law is not exercising local discretion but setting aside a legal obligation that binds everyone else. The second objection concerns victims. Where an offender is not punished, the victim does not receive the redress they are owed, and the harm done to them is left standing on the public record as something that carried no cost. A justice system that does not answer for what was done to a person has failed that person a second time. The third objection is about the future rather than the past. This is dangerous because offenders repeat their behaviour: a thief will steal again, and a serial killer will kill again. Punishment on this account is not only retrospective but preventive, and a jurisdiction that withholds it leaves the same people at liberty to offend. Ordinary civilians would therefore be at risk of becoming the next target of criminals in sanctuary cities. For these reasons the position holds that sanctuary cities serve no real purpose — they suspend the law's operation without supplying anything that does the work the law was doing.

Context

Sanctuary cities have existed for centuries. They were used as a place where criminals could escape persecution from their peers. In modern day times, the idea of a sanctuary city has changed a lot. Instead, immigrants are safe from deportation in these cities. However, not everyone is open to immigrants who’ve come to their country illegally because they’ve broken rules to stay in the country. Yet, sanctuary cities are trying to claim that the federal law cannot control their laws.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Sanctuary cities don’t harbor terrible criminals. Some criminals are wrongfully accused. Out of the entire prison system in America, 1% of individuals (22,000) people, have been wrongfully accused. If someone is wrongfully accused, they would want to escape from the reach of the law. Another thing that sanctuary cities do is protect illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants try to escape from a horrible life to find better opportunities in other countries. However, they’re considered illegal because they don’t provide the right paperwork and don’t financially support the government though taxes. But because they’re escaping a bad life, sanctuary cities provide protection from deportation. The law isn’t always fair. The law only sees black and white. Unfortunate individuals can get accused of a crime they never committed. Families need to be safe. That’s why the world needs sanctuary cities to be the gray middle ground.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The law is imperfect and arrests innocent people too. [Rejecting P2] Sanctuary cities are protected by state government. [Rejecting P3] People who come to sanctuary cities are usually immigrants who cause no trouble.