2016-2026 - ongoing

Maximal sanctuary / immigration noncooperation

Local noncooperation can be lawful federalism, but maximal forms risk normalizing nullification-style governance.

DemocraticDemocratic/progressive cities/statesMedium confidence

Claim

Federalism can become institutional deadlock when each side escalates.

What Happened

Democratic cities and states limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; courts have upheld some policies.

Why It Matters

Coherent enforcement and legitimate local autonomy are both at stake.

Model Read

Scores are structured judgments. The range widens when confidence falls.

Citizen impact56

Weighted toward human damage, realized harm, and durability.

Confidence-adjusted51

Long-term damage discounted for source and causal uncertainty.

Long-term range49-69

Medium confidence. Better evidence should narrow this band.

Strongest Counterargument

The anti-commandeering doctrine allows localities to refuse to use local resources for federal enforcement.

Incentive Check

Who benefits from exaggerating this?

Those who call all sanctuary policy lawless may misstate federalism doctrine.

Who benefits from minimizing this?

Those who ignore consequences for enforcement and public trust may understate costs.

Evidence

Methodology Caveats

  • Primary proof gap

    No attached source is labeled primary proof yet. Treat the score as provisional until a primary record, official dataset, or court record is added.

  • Index limits

    Watchdog and democracy-index scores are comparative signals. Component methods, time periods, and uncertainty matter before the index is used as evidence for one card.

  • Status caution

    This card is not settled. Scores should move when a better source changes the event record, legal posture, denominator, or counterargument.

Sources

Related Cards

Keep It Independent

Fund The Work Without Buying The Verdict

All support options