1. Sanctuary City Policy in Toronto: Challenges and Opportunities

2. Pilot Research Project A legal and empirical study of Access T.O.. The project aims to explore: 1) The causes and experiences of irregularity 2) How to enhance access to core city and social services 3) How to enhance collaboration among government and civil society 4) How to challenge harmful or inadequate federal and provincial laws. It relies mainly on interviews with government, community organizations, professionals (doctors, lawyers, midwives), and undocumented migrants.

3. What is Sanctuary City? Is a term of art describing cities that have made it official policy to not cooperate in, or to outright obstruct, the enforcement of federal immigration laws. At a minimum, these policies protect undocumented migrants from being identified by the federal authorities i.e. being detained and deported. They also can perform three other functions: 1) Provide access to municipal services e.g. shelter, education, emergency services, libraries, community programs, some health services. 2) Enhance the civic engagement of undocumented migrants and the well- being of the city. 3) Foster policy change at the provincial and federal levels.

4. Access T.O.: Information and Services In 2013, Toronto became the first Canadian “sanctuary city”, when it officially implemented a long-standing, informal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. The policy is currently termed Access T.O.. With respect to most city services, city officials are not to: a)inquire about immigration status information b)refuse services on the basis of immigration status c)report immigration status to federal authorities

5. Is Access T.O. Working? This question depends on what we take the objective of the policy to be. Is it concerned simply with “local bureaucratic membership” i.e. access to city services? Is it concerned with cultivating trust and inclusion within the migrant community? Is it concerned with strengthening the city (culture, community, economy, health, etc.)? The province? Is it concerned with resisting or changing federal immigration law i.e. revising our conceptions of “citizenship”?

6. Priority Areas While bureaucratic membership is important, most respondents see sanctuary city as best oriented towards structural changes. The following are priority areas: a) Regularization - Possible, but not without limitations and unintended problems. b) Changes to eligibility rules for provincial and federal services (OHIP, social assistance, Interim Federal Health Program etc.) -There is a near-total absence of communication among the three levels of government in key areas, including recognizing the problem of irregularity. -There are “short-cuts” at the local level e.g. some free medical clinics for uninsured -Policy advocacy is done by networks of organizations and professionals (OCASI, CCR, Access Alliance, Local Health Integration Network ) and profession working in various sectors.

7. Priority Areas c) Service Integration Lack of front-line communication across city division sectors Similar disorganization and misinformation among community service organizations. Note: this is not the case at the policy level. Competing ethical, professional, and institutional obligations within the professions e.g. physicians, lawyers d) Non-Compliance and Lack of Trust -Audits reveal that undocumented migrants are denied services to which they are entitled. -Rates of non-compliance vary within sectors. -Primary causes include bias/discrimination, inadequate training/learning, organizational culture, and federal pressure e.g. CBSA.

8. Priority Areas e) Data -There is an absence of data on the demographics of undocumented migrants. -The federal government does not track this, denies the severity of the issue, and exploits irregular migrants for economic purposes. -The municipal government does not collect data to protect against federal law-enforcement; privacy rights are a key site of contestation. -Lack, or misuse, of data impedes an understanding of unmet needs and how to improve services.