In 1987, Oregon became the first sanctuary state in the United States.
Sanctuary states prevent local police and government agencies from helping federal authorities with immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant.
This can take on many forms, from police not assisting with ICE operations, to state agencies not asking about immigration status in many cases. Oregon law also prevents law enforcement from honoring immigration detainers, which are requests from the Department of Homeland Security to keep someone who immigrated illegally in jail or prison past their initial sentence so federal immigration enforcement can place them in custody.
Sanctuary states and cities have been thrust further into the spotlight as an increased presence from Immigration Customs and Enforcement has become a key aspect of President Donald Trump’s second term. Even with its sanctuary status, Oregon saw a dramatic increase in immigration arrests from 2024 to 2025.
Some argue sanctuary states are more necessary now than ever, while others point to the required lack of collaboration between state and federal authorities only serving to worsen tensions. Would it be best for Oregon to keep its status?
YES
By Emilia Dano and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program
Sanctuary jurisdictions do not have higher crime rates; in fact, they often see lower rates of violent crime and property crime compared to non-sanctuary jurisdictions. This does not mean being a sanctuary state causes less crime, but when a state is designated as a sanctuary state, like Oregon, it does not create more public safety issues for all the communities found there.
In sanctuary states all communities, especially communities of immigrants, feel more comfortable reporting crimes and activities. Since immigrant communities are often in lower income areas where more crime is likely to occur, this is a huge benefit to have people that will be able to report crime without fear of their own safety, and even potentially feel comfortable acting as a witness during an investigation. This also allows for local law enforcement agencies to focus on local crime and safety rather than immigration, which is handled by the federal government.
In the 10th Amendment of the Constitution, the principle of state sovereignty is outlined, allowing Oregon and other states to determine the best use of their own resources (such as the police) rather than the federal government determining it for us. This protects the states from federal overreach, and also protects residents of the state from unjustified detention and ensuring due process, especially when federal immigration enforcement operates without a judicial warrant.
In Oregon, a significant amount of our work force, particularly in agriculture, construction, and healthcare, is made up by immigrants. Both in the state and in other cities across the country, having more ICE activity and more immigration crackdown greatly affects the economy, and not in a good way. In other states where immigration was suppressed we have seen labor exoduses, such as Florida’s 2023 immigration law (Senate Bill 1718), which made it harder to hire undocumented immigrants, which resulted in increased labor shortages in specifically agriculture and construction.
Immigrating to the United States of America from a country in the Caribbean, Central, or South America is considered to be very difficult. This process is often expensive, time consuming, and can take up to years or even decades. It is not a fair argument to say that undocumented immigrants should have come here “the right way” when the legal process of coming here is excessively difficult.
The process is daunting. Just the paperwork for legal immigration for a standard U.S. citizenship by naturalization is $760, and then you still have to wait years – or decades – until citizenship is actually granted.
A majority of the immigrants seeking citizenship in America come here for good reasons; if the process for immigration is made more fair, then it is easier to weed out the people who enter the country seeking to get away from criminal records or drug trafficking, or other worries people have about the minority of immigrants.
Until then, we have sanctuary states in place to allow for public safety for all, protection of constitutional principles, and supporting the economics of immigration.
NO
By Travis Overvig, Mark Nusom, and the LBCC Civil Discourse Program
Supporters of sanctuary states argue such laws build trust and protect vulnerable communities. Those goals deserve respect. But public policy must be judged by outcomes.
Start with scale. Pew Research Center estimates the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States reached a record 14 million in 2023. Today, Oregon has more than 100,000 unauthorized immigrants, roughly the combined populations of Albany and Corvallis. Entering the country illegally or overstaying a visa violates federal law. Reform can be debated, but selectively declining to enforce existing law weakens the rule of law itself.
The safest moment for immigration enforcement is when someone is already in custody after committing a crime. Research from the Migration Policy Institute shows that historically, most immigration arrests within the U.S. stem from individuals first encountered in the criminal justice system, meaning enforcement has long relied on secure custody transfers rather than later at-large arrests in neighborhoods or workplaces.
When coordination is blocked and detainers are declined, enforcement does not disappear — it shifts into public settings, increasing complexity and operational risk. National polling shows federal immigration agencies face substantial public skepticism. Blocking coordinated jail transfers can unintentionally increase reliance on the very at-large federal operations critics seek to limit.
When detainers are declined and individuals are released, federal authorities must initiate removal proceedings through immigration court rather than coordinating a custody transfer during jail time. Each declined detainer becomes a new case in an already overwhelmed system. According to TRAC at Syracuse University, the immigration court backlog has surpassed 3 million pending cases, with each judge handling roughly 4,500 cases. That isn’t precision; it’s institutional delay layered on top of release.
This is not theoretical. Consider the case of Ramon Aguirre Ochoa, deported in 2009 and arrested again in 2015 on domestic assault charges before being released despite an ICE detainer. Less than a year later, he was arrested and charged with multiple violent sexual offenses against a minor. The case shows what can happen when detainers are declined — a preventable second victim following a failure of coordination. A secure custody transfer would have meant no delay, no public arrest, and no second victim.
There is also a question of fairness. The United States is home to more legal immigrants than any nation in the world. Millions wait years, pay fees, pass background checks, and comply with every requirement because they believe the rules matter. When policies shield unlawful presence even after repeated violations of federal law, it sends a harmful message: the line only matters for those willing to stand in it. That double standard undermines the integrity of the system and disrespects immigrants who followed the law.
Ending sanctuary status would not mean mass deportations or hostility toward immigrant communities. It would mean allowing controlled coordination when someone has already broken the law and is in custody. It would mean safer enforcement, clearer accountability, and equal application of the law. Nearly four decades after becoming the nation’s first sanctuary state, Oregon should restore controlled cooperation and reconsider whether its sanctuary policy still serves Oregon’s public interest.
