https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9169-1633
![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article analyses immigrant sanctuary policies and practices in San Francisco between 1985 and 2018 to theorise about the role of mayors in developing, defending, and adjusting city efforts to shield undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. Drawing on assorted qualitative data, it makes the case that the multilevel context of US immigration policy is an important determinant for how mayors have addressed immigration issues locally. In particular, it highlights two strategies that San Francisco mayors have used to influence sanctuary policies and practices while navigating ongoing intergovernmental scrutiny of the city’s lenient treatment of undocumented immigrants. When the risk of intergovernmental antagonism over city policies and practices was low, mayors adopted facilitative, democratic leadership strategies characterised by collaboration with local governmental and non-governmental actors to strengthen or institutionalise immigrant sanctuary. When the risk of intergovernmental antagonism was high, mayors retreated to executive, less democratic leadership strategies characterised by top-down decision-making and mayoral insulation from local political actors to curtail immigrant sanctuary and protect the city from state or federal attacks. This research illustrates how state and federal interference in city affairs can make it challenging for mayors to govern democratically by collaborating with other local actors.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author thanks anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback and Matt Seidel for editorial assistance.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 Mayor–council and council–manager governments are the two main forms of local government in the United States. Mayor–council governments – found mostly in large cities and very small cities, especially those in the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest – have an executive mayor elected by voters and a separately elected legislative city council. In strong mayor–council governments, mayors have more legal power than in weak mayor–council governments. In cities with council–manager governments, an elected city council serves as the primary legislative body and appoints a city manager to oversee the day-to-day operation of local government. Most council–manager governments also feature a mayor who is a regular voting member of city council and also represents the city on ceremonial occasions. Council–manager governments are common in US cities with populations over 10,000 and those located in the Southwest and Atlantic Coast areas (ICMA, Citation2019; Morgan & Watson, Citation1996).
2 These are: Dianne Feinstein (1978–88), Art Agnos (1988–92), Frank Jordan (1992–96), Willie Brown (1996–2004), Gavin Newsom (2004–11), Ed Lee (2011–17), Mark Farrell (2018; served briefly as interim mayor after Mayor Lee’s sudden death), and London Breed (2018–present).
3 The United States generally has two tiers of government below the state: counties and municipalities. Counties are state-created administrative subdivisions, generally encompassing larger geographical areas than municipalities. Depending on states’ constitutions, municipalities are most commonly structured as cities, towns, or villages. In rare cases, US cities formally join their surrounding county to form a city–county consolidation to save costs and increase governmental efficiency. San Francisco has been a city–county consolidation since 1856.
4 Under the California state constitution, cities (and counties) can be chartered to run and control their own affairs. To take advantage of this constitutional ‘home rule’ provision, cities need a majority of voters to adopt a local constitution, or charter, that sets up local government and outlines its authority and limitations.
5 Interview held on 4 February 2009.
6 Interview held on 27 February 2006.
7 In San Francisco (and many other US cities and states), laws are made via both the traditional legislative process and a direct democracy process where city residents and city officials can place policy measures or ‘initiatives’ on the ballot for voters to vote on during elections.
8 Interview held on 9 February 2009.
9 Interview held on 4 February 2009.
10 Interview held on June 2 2009.
11 Interview held on 25 May 2016.
12 Interview held on 26 June 2007.
13 Interview held on 4 February 2009.
14 Interview held on 19 February 2009.
15 Interview held on 4 February 2009.
16 Interview held on 4 February 2009.
17 City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Trump – 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018).
18 ‘Amicus Brief of 36 Cities and Counties in Support of City and County of San Francisco’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction’, https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/IM-CA-0085-0033.pdf.
19 Interviews held on 19 February and June 2 2009.
20 Interview held on June 2 2009.