No Sanctuary Cities

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on Tennessee


Illegal Immigration Estimated to Cost Tennessee Taxpayers $793 Million in 2017



The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers


Justice Department suing California over sanctuary laws


Nashville Preparing to Become Most Liberal Sanctuary City in the U.S.

Metro Nashville School Board Supports Metro Council’s Proposed ‘Sanctuary City’ Policy

Mark Green: A nation of laws does not harbor criminals

63 Members of Tennessee House of Representatives Object to Passage of Nashville’s Proposed Sanctuary City Ordinance  

Nine State Senators Join 63 House Members in Opposing Nashville Sanctuary City Ordinance, More Expected 

Nashville immigration proposals dead as council members plan withdrawal

Eleven States Launch Legal Fight Against Sanctuary Cities, Tennessee Not Among Them

Tancredo: Over 300 Sanctuary Cities Are Costing State and Local Taxpayers over $7,000,000,000 Annually

Border Patrol: California sanctuary laws obstruct public safety, law enforcement  




SB 2332 by *Green , Bell, Ketron, Roberts, Pody, Southerland, Bowling, Jackson, HB 2315 by *Reedy, Terry, Sexton J, Moody, Rogers, Hill M, Goins, Eldridge, Byrd, Matheny
Immigration - As introduced, prohibits state and local governmental entities and officials from adopting sanctuary policies; authorizes Tennessee residents and members of the general assembly to submit complaints to the attorney general; provides that violations subject entities to ineligibility of state moneys; requires law enforcement agencies to enter into memorandums of agreement with federal officials concerning enforcement of federal immigration laws


PLEASE NOTE, THIS BILL HAS BEEN RE-WRITTEN. You can find the new text HERE.   


2017 Anti-Sanctuary City Bill Update

SB 2332 Green -  HB 2315 Reedy

Purpose of the bill:

To augment and clarify Tennessee’s public policy regarding cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Why we need this bill:

In June 2017, the Davidson County Metro Council introduced two ordinances designed to obstruct compliance with both federal and state law regarding illegal aliens who have committed criminal acts in addition to, or unrelated to their immigration status.

Opposition by more than half of the Tennessee General Assembly members to Metro Council’s efforts effectively operate as a sanctuary city, along with a negative legal opinion by Metro’s Legal Director, resulted in both ordinances being withdrawn by the sponsors.

Metro Council’s attempt to obstruct cooperation federal immigration authorities using a “don’t ask so you don’t have to know or tell” practice highlights the need to strengthen and clarify Tennessee law.

How this bill works:

Section 1 (state) and Section 2 (local) - broaden the definition of “sanctuary policy” to include “any directive, order, ordinance, resolution, practice or policy, whether formally enacted, informally adopted, or otherwise effectuated”

•   sanctuary policies come in a variety of ways; some are enacted as written local laws while others are embedded in “welcoming resolutions” or simply as internal law enforcement agency policy and/or practices

•  Tennessee’s current sanctuary policy only addresses written policies and does not extend to


•   the broader definition is explicit that no governmental entity in Tennessee will be limited or prohibited from communicating with federal immigration authorities

•   AG Loretta Lynch said that city officials must comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 - the free flow of communication between state/local government and federal immigration officers concerning an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.

•  North Carolina and Georgia have adopted the broader definition

Sections 1 and 3 allow the state to withhold ECD moneys from any governmental entity that adopts a sanctuary policy (per the broadened definition of sanctuary policy)

Section 5 - affirms that cooperating with ICE and complying with detainer requests is consistent with federal law which permits state and local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration officers without a written agreement.

•  ICE detainers are accompanied by a warrant and a statement of probable cause that an immigration violation has occurred.

•  two New York cases (2014 & 2015) held that an ICE detainer based on probable cause did not violate any constitutional rights.

•  removal under federal immigration law is a civil matter so no jurisdiction for Article III judges to issue judicial warrants. The Immigration and Nationality Act provides for DHS issued administrative warrants.

•   memorandum of agreement by local law enforcement to enforce immigration law pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1357(g) is permissive.

•   communication or cooperation with federal immigration authorities in the identification of removable aliens does NOT require a written agreement per 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)(10)