The Effect of Intergovernmental Policy Conflict on Immigrants’ Behavior: Insights from a Survey Experiment in California

Abstract

As Congress remains gridlocked on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, immigration policy debates, particularly with respect to interior immigration enforcement, are increasingly taking place at state and local levels. Scholarship on immigration federalism has focused on federal and local governments, while states are passing laws that tighten or delimit cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (i.e., “sanctuary policies”). Simultaneously, cities are passing laws contradictory to state policy. We examine how these state and local enforcement ambiguities affect undocumented immigrants’ trust in the efficacy of sanctuary policies. Using California as a case, we embedded an experiment in a survey of undocumented immigrants and find trust in sanctuary policies decreases when cities seek to opt out of statewide sanctuary laws. Further, “opting out” has negative implications for the daily behavior of undocumented immigrants, like the chilling effects resulting from local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.