Stay informed and empowered. Sign up for the latest updates from the Latino Policy Forum.

*
indicates required

April 03, 2025

Welcoming Policies: An Overview

By: Nina Sedeño, Senior Immigration Policy Analyst

State and local policies that welcome immigrants make communities safer, healthier, and more economically prosperous while upholding constitutional rights.

However, the current administration is threatening to revoke federal funding from jurisdictions with laws that limit the ability of the federal government to utilize local police to carry out its responsibility of enforcing federal immigration laws. Illinois and Chicago prioritize the safety and rights of all its residents regardless of immigration status. As a result, they have become prime targets for these funding cuts, as well as lawsuits, disinformation and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

The Latino Policy Forum works to educate communities by promoting accurate information and using data to distinguish fact from rhetoric, fostering a more humane narrative on immigration. This document clarifies what welcoming policies truly are—and what they are not—while highlighting their impact on communities.

What is a “welcoming policy?”

Generally, a “welcoming” policy is one that fosters safety and inclusion for all residents, regardless of immigration status. Examples of welcoming policies include states issuing the same standard driver’s license to all residents, community colleges offering free or remote English-language classes, and expanded access to public health services during a nationwide pandemic.

Some jurisdictions adopt welcoming policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities in enforcing immigration law, and for a number of reasons: to promote greater trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, to prioritize local resources, and establish clear boundaries between local and federal authority. These policies are often broadly referred to as “sanctuary” policies.

Unsurprisingly, the word “sanctuary” has been used by this administration to falsely claim that these policies violate federal law and “harbor criminals”, unjustly equating being an “immigrant” with being a “criminal.” As a matter of fact, these policies comply with federal law and do not restrict federal immigration authorities from operating within any jurisdiction.

Illinois as a welcoming state

Illinois solidified its position as the most welcoming state in the nation with the passage of the Illinois TRUST Act (“Act”) in 2017, a law that limits cooperation between local law enforcement (“police”) and federal immigration authorities (“ICE”).

The Forum acknowledges State Senator John J. Cullerton, State Representative Emanuel Chris Welch, the dozens of cosponsors and community-based organizations across the Illinois that made up the broad and diverse coalition, led in large part by immigrant community members, that supported and ultimately passed the Act.

The Act stipulates that state and local police cannot stop, search, arrest, or detain someone just because of their citizenship or immigration status. Further, police cannot detain someone longer than they would otherwise be held just because ICE requests custody, also known as an “immigration detainer” (jurisdictions have no legal obligation to comply with detainers), unless presented with a warrant signed by a judge.

Only three cities in Illinois are known to have policies limiting cooperation between police and ICE, beyond existing state law : Chicago, Evanston, and Oak Park (Village). Overall, these policies state that city officials, including police, will not expend local resources on federal immigration matters.

The impact of welcoming policies on:

Crime & public safety: Welcoming policies foster trust between communities and law enforcement. When residents, regardless of immigration status, feel safe engaging with the police, going to school, or seeking medical care, communities thrive. On the other hand, if residents are not engaging in essential activities or reporting crimes out of fear of deportation, public safety is compromised.

A 2013 UIC survey found that 44 percent of Latinos were less likely to contact police officers if they had been a victim of a crime, fearing that the interaction would be used as an opportunity to inquire into their immigration status or that of people they know. A recent study (2025) by the Urban Institute found that in the wake of the 2024 election, 29% of all immigrant families—and 60% of mixed-status families1 —expressed worry about driving a car, going to work, or attending religious services because they did not want to draw attention to their or a family member’s immigration status.

Disengagement with police and community spaces can severely impact immigrant families’ health and well-being. Fear and anxiety related to deportation and family separation can lead to serious issues in young children, such as disrupted brain development, behavior problems, and post-traumatic stress disorder. These impacts, in turn, spill over into the community, and vice versa. Welcoming policies aim to reduce this effect, known as a “chilling effect.”2

Opponents of welcoming policies assert that they reduce public safety and increase crime. However, data has shown repeatedly that there is no correlation between the existence of welcoming policies and increased crime.
Nina Sedeño


Opponents of welcoming policies assert that they reduce public safety and increase crime. However, data has shown repeatedly that there is no correlation between the existence of welcoming policies and increased crime. A 2019 study published in the Undergraduate Economic Review explored the relationship between violent crime rates and property crime rates in cities that limit cooperation with ICE and those that do not and found that there was no statistically significant relationship between the two. And one other study, from the Center for American Progress, showed a decrease in crime in jurisdictions with welcoming policies. In that 2017 study researchers found that on average, 35.5 fewer crimes were committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to non-sanctuary counties.

What about violent crime? A 2020 PNAS study, using FBI crime data, revealed that sanctuary policies between 2010 and 2015 reduced deportations of people with no criminal convictions by half—without affecting deportations of people with violent convictions. This suggests that welcoming policies do not prevent police from arresting individuals who committed violent crimes, despite arguments to the contrary. Ultimately, welcoming policies help police to do their jobs more effectively while ensuring community safety.

Due process & constitutional rights: Due process is a fundamental right protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, that ensure all individuals —regardless of immigration status— are treated fairly under the law. Refusing to comply with ICE detainers, which is one of the primary ways jurisdictions can cooperate with ICE, upholds due process.

Moreover, jurisdictions may refuse to comply with detainers because several courts have found aspects of them to be unconstitutional. Under the Fourth Amendment, ICE must have “probable cause” to compel police to hold someone beyond their release date, as this is considered a new arrest. ICE must determine that the detained person is “deportable” or “subject to removal.”

Unfortunately, in practice, this does not always happen. In 2019, a federal court in California exposed a major flaw in ICE’s system: between May 2015 and February 2016, ICE mistakenly asked police to arrest nearly 800 individuals—all of whom were either U.S. citizens or otherwise not deportable. In other words, ICE relies on a system that is prone to errors and has little-to-no accountability, which leaves certain groups—victims of crime or immigrants with limited English proficiency, for example—vulnerable to detention and potential deportation. For these reasons, and to avoid financial liability, jurisdictions will not comply with ICE detainers altogether.

Illinois legislators and advocates set a national example in safeguarding due process by enacting the Illinois Way Forward Act and the VOICES Act, reinforcing Illinois’ commitment to protecting individuals in police custody and victims of crime, respectively.

The economy & community prosperity: Immigrants are essential to this country, contributing to its culture and economy in many ways. According to 2023 data compiled by the American Immigration Council, immigrants in the U.S. contributed over $650 billion in taxes, held $1.7 trillion in spending power, and were more likely to be of working age than their U.S.-born counterparts, making them crucial members of the labor force. In Illinois, immigrants paid over $27 billion in taxes, with 2.5 times the spending power, and over 27 percent of entrepreneurs were immigrants.

Undocumented immigrants contributed a staggering $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in 2022, according to ITEP. More than a third of the taxes paid by undocumented workers went toward Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance, programs from which they are barred. Illinois relied on $1.5 billion in tax revenue from undocumented workers in 2022.

“When immigrants do better, we all do better.”
Nina Sedeño


Welcoming policies enable individuals and families to live, thrive, and contribute fully. In the same 2017 CAP study, ICE also reported better economic outcomes. On average, median household incomes and labor force participation rates were higher, while poverty rates, unemployment rates, and reliance on public assistance were lower. When immigrants do better, we all do better.

Conclusion

By fostering inclusion rather than fear, welcoming policies contribute to stronger economies, safer neighborhoods, and more resilient communities for all. A welcoming policy is a good policy.

Endnotes

  1. A mixed-status family is where one or more members of a household are undocumented and all other members are either naturalized, US-born citizens, or permanent residents, or have another lawful immigration status. ↩︎
  2. The term “chilling effect” is widely used to mean that immigrants and their families who have used public benefits and services in the past, or might have done so in the future, choose not to participate out of confusion or fear of real or perceived immigration consequences. ↩︎
Scroll to Top