Local vs Federal Enforcement: Sanctuary Responses from San Francisco, Philadelphia, and New York City to Obama’s and Trump’s administrations

This thesis investigates the evolution of sanctuary policies in San Francisco, Philadelphia, and New York City (NYC) in the United States during the administrations of Barack Obama (2009-2016) and Donald Trump (2017-2020). The study focuses on the differing local approaches to sanctuary during these periods and how municipalities responded to changing federal pressures. The central research question of this study is: How were the sanctuary policy approaches of San Francisco, Philadelphia and NYC modified once Donald Trump became President of the United States? To address this question, the thesis provides a qualitative and quantitative comparative document analysis of the sanctuary policies employed by these cities, through a theoretical framework that includes terms such as multi-level governance, local turn and sanctuary ideal types. Key findings highlight the resilience and adaptability of cities in the face of federal challenges. San Francisco, Philadelphia, and NYC each developed unique strategies to protect their vulnerable immigrant populations, despite the federal government's efforts to undermine their sanctuary. This thesis concludes that sanctuary is significantly influenced by the local context rather than by the federal administration's stance on immigration. This study also shows the importance of local governance in shaping immigration policy and the critical role of cities in safeguarding the rights and well-being of irregular migrant communities.