Sanctuary cities and local autonomy: when is resistance to national migration laws justified
Keywords
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Issue Date
2025-06-13
Language
en
Document type
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Title
ISSN
Volume
Issue
Startpage
Endpage
DOI
Abstract
Inspired by the recent events in the United States and the Netherlands, where local communities and their governments oppose nationally imposed migration laws, this thesis explores the moral responsibilities of local government towards immigrants and whether they can legitimately refuse to enforce such migration laws. The focus lies on the debate on American sanctuary cities—cities that resist national deportation policies to protect undocumented immigrants—and whether such resistance, as well as opposition to more inclusive national migration policies, can be justified.
Through a literature review of debates on global justice, the ethics of migration, and the legitimacy of sanctuary cities, this research analyses two case studies that illustrate the practical consequences of applying these theoretical arguments in political contexts. The aim is to assess under what conditions local governments ought to comply with national laws, whether restrictive or welcoming.
Based on this review, it is argued that refugees and long-term immigrants cannot justifiably be deported, while other immigrants may be refused entry if their arrival threatens cultural preservation. Sanctuary practices are legitimate only when national policies are unjust or when the national government refuses to cooperate and deliberate with local authorities. Other justifications for sanctuary or anti-sanctuary actions lack sufficient moral grounding. Specifically, Dutch municipalities opposing the Dispersal Act in the case study are not justified, as less disruptive alternatives exist and the needs of refugees outweigh local objections.
Description
Citation
Supervisor
Faculty
Faculteit der Managementwetenschappen