A Ship Without a Captain: Political Disengagement and the Failings of Sanctuary City Policy in Toronto, Canada

Abstract

Cities across the world are contending with the human rights and policy consequences of exclusionary national and international migration regimes. Those in federal states have distinctive opportunities to create safe and inclusive (sub-)urban environments and to provide access to sub-national social services, like health, housing, and social assistance. But they also risk provoking hostile reactions from national governments and heated jurisdictional conflicts that can carry serious political and fiscal consequences. This is certainly true of cities in the United States, but it has not been true of Canada whose short history of sanctuary is defined by conflict avoidance. The federal government has not once taken an official stance on the legality of sanctuary city policies, while Mayors and City councils have carved off from broader struggles over the authority to govern migration and borders. This strategy has not served non-status migrants for whom avoiding contact with the federal government is their primary self-interest every day well; above all else, they need municipalities to stand up, intervene, and defend their right to the city. Drawing on empirical research on Toronto, Canada, this chapter reflects on the practical and political failings of localist approaches to sanctuary. Set in the context of struggles for control over data, legal space, and political identity, Toronto’s experience with sanctuary has been defined by the absence of political stewardship marked by an unwillingness to risk conflicts with the federal government. The failings of these policies, and of provincial conceptions of sanctuary, may serve as a lesson to cities in other national jurisdictions.