Search

Despite the increased scholarship on sanctuary localities in the United States, there is little research analyzing the factors that lead to the adoption of sanctuary resolutions at the municipal level. Drawing on a new dataset of sanctuary and nonsanctuary cities, we theorize that policy adoption is driven primarily by two factors and their interaction: the size of the foreign-born population and local partisanship. We examine cities that passed sanctuary policies between 2000 and 2018 and compare these localities to nonsanctuaries. Using a novel time series cross-section dataset (TSCS) of all cities and designated places and a Cox proportional hazard model, we find that Democratic-leaning cities with high foreign-born populations predict sanctuary passage, whereas Republican-leaning cities with larger foreign-born populations are unlikely to adopt these policies. We thus find that while partisanship motivates sanctuary policy adoption, at the same time, the size of the foreign-born population also increases the likelihood of passage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do parties in migrant-sending countries engage with the diaspora? Migrants exercise an increasingly important voice in electoral politics in their home countries, though they often either cannot legally vote or vote in very low numbers, yet parties attempt to leverage the influence they believe migrants have over voters at home. However the degree and manner by which parties reach out to diaspora citizens varies widely. A case study of El Salvador points to party organisation as a determinant of variation among parties in diaspora campaigning, based on interviews with Salvadoran party elites in the U.S. and El Salvador, party documents, and historical comparison of campaign activities of El Salvador's two major parties, ARENA and FMLN, over three presidential elections and one mayoral election. FMLN, with a hierarchical model and base committee structure, more effectively mobilizes diaspora support while ARENA, with a horizontal model and sectoral structure, exhibits difficulties in party-diaspora coordination and largely makes indirect and symbolic references to diaspora issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]