Sanctuary cities encourage dangerous criminals and their behavior

The argument

Criminals are people who have broken the law of a country, state, or region. Thieves, murderers, robbers, and abusers are a few types of criminals. Criminals cause pain to their victims and the people around them, and because they cause harm to people in society, they need to be punished. The argument treats that last point as an obligation owed to particular people rather than as a general policy preference. A crime leaves someone worse off, and punishment is the mechanism by which that wrong is formally answered. Whatever else a justice system does, it has to be able to reach the person who committed the offence, because nothing else it does can substitute for that. This is where sanctuary policies are said to fail. In a sanctuary city, there are many criminals hiding from the law, and because the law can't reach them, they can't pay for their crimes. The consequences are concrete rather than abstract: the items a thief stole can't be replaced, and a murderer can't be put on trial and locked away. In each case the failure falls on the victim, who is left with the loss and without the process that would have addressed it, while the offender is left in place. The objection is therefore about who bears the cost of the policy. Victims need the retribution that is due to them. Criminals take property, life, or even innocence — harms that cannot simply be absorbed by the people who suffered them — and a city that places enforcement out of reach has decided, in effect, that those losses will go unanswered. On this argument they don't deserve the safety of sanctuary cities. Instead, they deserve the punishment due to them.

Context

Sanctuary cities harbor criminals in the past. A murderer could enter a sanctuary city and, because of the city’s policy, not be caught or charged with their crimes. On many occasions, tests have been done to see whether current sanctuary cities have an increase in crime because of this. Unfortunately, not all illegal immigrants come with peaceful intentions. Some are involved in criminal drug systems that find ways to sneak through a country’s borders.

Premises

Counter-arguments

If a person is wrongfully accused of a crime, a sanctuary city is the perfect place to hide. Being accused of a serious crime like murder could ruin someone’s life. They could be thrown in jail for life for something they never did. The law isn’t foolproof which is why a third party is needed. Not all criminals in sanctuary cities are criminals. Illegal immigrants are by law criminals. However, the only crime they’re guilty of is being in a country without lawful entry. But illegal immigrants do this to have a better life away from their original home. Sanctuary cities aren’t required to follow the law of the land. In America, there’s a line between a state’s government and federal government. It’s good to have another hand in lawmaking. It makes sure that everyone, including immigrants, are treated as human beings.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Some criminals are innocent people who have been wrongfully accused of a crime. [Rejecting P2] Sanctuary cities keep people like immigrants away from severe persecution. [Rejecting P3] Sanctuary cities look at a crime from a different perspective which allows criminals who have been wrongfully accused to find solace.