Sanctuary cities ensure immigrants are not fearful of deportation

The argument

Immigrants have been the source of controversy for decades, but proponents of this position argue that the controversy rarely starts with why people move. The reason why people travel from their home to other countries is to either escape the crime around them or provide better financial opportunities for their family. The conditions behind those two motives are severe: 80% of Mexico is controlled by cartels who pay off the police, and Sierra Leone's typical family only earns about $516 a year. Where the police are bought and a year's income is that small, leaving is less a preference than the only response available. Despite their poor living conditions, immigrants have become a problem for a couple of reasons, and proponents state them rather than deny them. One, the influx of people who don't pay taxes to the federal government; income tax helps the government support community projects and be prepared for emergencies in the future. Two, having people sneak into a country is a security risk. However, these should not be reasons to kick immigrants out, since neither describes what most of the people in question have actually done. That distinction is what sanctuary cities are built on. Sanctuary cities provide aid and safety for immigrants who haven't done those things — people who are neither a security risk nor evading tax, and whose only irregularity is their status itself. The idea is to help people. Where a city guarantees that contact with local services will not lead to deportation, families can report crimes, seek treatment and send children to school without weighing each of those against the risk of removal. It's not right to turn away an entire family because they didn't fill out the right papers or pay a certain amount of money. People's lives matter more than that.

Context

Illegal immigrants come to countries other than their own to usually escape hardship. Because they come illegally, there are groups of law enforcement that look for these immigrants and initiate their deportation. Deportation has gotten a lot of negative feedback for separating families and being insensitive to the needs of individuals. Since immigrants are scared of deportation, they try to lay low as much as possible. Laying low often means not calling the police if they’re in trouble. To give immigrants a better place to thrive, sanctuary cities enforced their no deportation laws.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The government can’t afford to lose pay. Without the extra money, the government won’t be prepared for financial emergencies or fund crucial necessities. This includes schools, public roads, and some volunteer organizations. Not a lot of money goes into these organizations anyway. They need the extra funding. The government also can’t afford to not keep up with number of people in the country. Visas and passports are forms of identification and verification. Losing track of hundreds of people would be an oversight on safety. Not all illegal immigrants are looking for a better life. Illegal immigration is a tool for drug smuggling. Sanctuary cities need to rethink their idea of keeping illegal immigrants. If they want to keep illegal immigrants, then the immigrants should be pulling money out of the cities’ pockets. Sacrificing a whole country’s health and safety for the sake of a few is unwise. Sometimes, one needs to look out for the majority versus the minority.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Immigrants travel away from their homes to support crimes like drug trafficking. [Rejecting P2] Countries need government funds and safety to stay prosperous. [Rejecting P3] A country’s overall health is more important than a few individuals.