Die zweite Trump-Regierung war in ihrer einwanderungsfeindlichen Politik aggressiver. Anti-Schutzmaßnahmen können sich negativ auf die Gesundheit von Einwanderern auswirken. Allerdings werden Schutzgebiete mit weniger Kriminalität und Armut, höherer Beschäftigung und höherem Einkommen sowie einem größeren Vertrauen in die Gemeinschaft in Verbindung gebracht.

Novel study maps changes in US immigration policy landscape since 9/11

Analysis in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine establishes a framework for further research into how federal, state, and local sanctuary and anti-sanctuary policies impact immigrants’ health

In a comprehensive analysis of state and local sanctuary and anti-sanctuary policies, researchers have mapped the rapidly evolving legal immigration landscape in the US from 2000 to 2021. The dataset sheds light on trends in immigration legislation including ”punitive” preemption, state government tendencies to enact laws that are ideologically opposed to the current federal administration, and conservative states using preemption to control liberal localities. The findings of the study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, published by Elsevier, can be used to examine how changes in state and local immigration policies drive health outcomes among immigrants and their communities.

Sanctuary and anti-sanctuary policies

Pro-immigration policies that limit law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration agencies—typically US Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—are called “sanctuary policies.” These are enacted to reduce use of public resources for immigration enforcement, improve trust in law enforcement, and promote inclusion. **Sanctuary jurisdictions are associated with having less crime and poverty, higher employment and income, and improved community trust**.

In contrast, “anti-sanctuary policies” encourage or require law enforcement to cooperate with immigration authorities. **Anti-sanctuary policies can negatively impact immigrants’ health** by making immigrants feel unwelcome, increasing deportation risk, and are associated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic illness, and avoidance of safety net programs and healthcare.

Preemption

Instances where anti-sanctuary states prohibit sanctuary localities or when sanctuary states prohibit 287(g) agreements are considered explicitly preemptive policies. Preemption is a legal mechanism whereby policies enacted at a higher level of government supersede policies enacted at a lower level of government. The researchers were interested in quantifying how preemption might advance or hinder health equity.

“**The second Trump administration has been more aggressive in anti-immigrant policies** such as allowing raids in previously protected places and detaining people with valid visas,” says senior-investigator Alina Schnake-Mahl, ScD, MPH, Department of Health Management and Policy, and Urban Health Collaborative, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University. “These actions may encourage more sanctuary policies as jurisdictions seek to shield immigrants from risk, minimize fear, and protect immigrant healthcare access and general health. However, the federal government has threatened to withhold funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, functionally preempting governments from enacting such policies.”

Punitive preemption, a recently coined term for a legal mechanism in which states use the threat of punishment to encourage or discourage policy action at the local level, was common in state anti-sanctuary policies but not in state sanctuary policies.

For those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(26)00054-1/fulltext

From what I can tell, the findings are largely explained by „wealthier cities are blue“.

Sanctuary cities are more common in the northeast and preemption laws are more common in the south. Health outcomes are better in the northeast and worse in the south.

Headline does the Reddit favorite of conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration

The study’s biggest weakness is that it starts from the assumption that sanctuary policies are inherently protective and anti-sanctuary policies are inherently harmful, then builds its coding system around that conclusion instead of proving it. For instance, it treats sanctuary as positive and anti-sanctuary as negative by coding laws on a scale from -1 for “most harmful to health” to +1 for “least harmful,” without ever establishing causation.

It also barely engages with counterarguments around crime, repeat offenders, prosecutorial discretion, or how sanctuary jurisdictions may distort crime reporting through reduced enforcement and detainer noncompliance (essentially catch-and-release practices that avoid ICE intervention). Instead, broad social outcomes like trust in police, income, and healthcare access are treated as automatic proxies for “health,” while public safety tradeoffs are largely ignored.

I will give it one thing: they openly admit their local dataset is incomplete. They lack substantial county policy data, are missing cities, municipal databases were limited, and some policies are simply absent. The problem is they call the study “comprehensive” long before admitting those gaps, so you have to read deep into the paper to realize it is anything but comprehensive.

Ultimately, it reads less like neutral analysis and more like a paper that assumes improvement based on a particular worldview, then treats opposition to that worldview as evidence of harm by default.

Well, yes.

Fascism and „fascism-adjacent“ ruling powers need eternal enemies and endless problems.

So, if you have a clearly defined, actionable solution for any of their chosen enemies or problems, you’re a threat that they’ll want taken care of.