Consider Maria, an undocumented individual who migrated to the United States from Mexico at 21. (Her name and some distinguishing features have been altered to preserve her anonymity.) Maria now is in her mid-forties, having lived in Chicago with her husband (who is a permanent resident) and two U.S. citizen children for 25 years. Despite having worked countless jobs, paid taxes, and positively impacted her local community through serving at church, she worries that her documentation status will get her deported, well, any day.

Why should individuals like Maria have to worry about being kicked out of the U.S? After all, Maria lives in Chicago, one of many large cities that have adopted sanctuary policies. These are laws that are specifically designed to protect people like Maria against rigid immigration laws.

Sanctuary cities prohibit local law officers from assisting with immigration law enforcers. Nonetheless, since immigration law is federally enforced, sanctuary cities like Chicago cannot offer full protection to undocumented residents. As a result, even long-term resident migrants like Maria can still be uprooted and deported.

Chicago’s Welcoming City Ordinance of 2012, for example, prohibits the collection and storing of an individual’s documentation status by any local law enforcers. Undocumented residents of Chicago are neither persecuted nor denied public services based on their documentation status, in accordance with Chicago’s mandate to serve and protect all of its residents. Undocumented residents of Chicago can now even acquire valid driver’s licenses or other IDs that allow them more scope to live a normal life out of the shadows.

Nonetheless, national efforts to deport as many immigrants as possible, as now being implemented by President Trump, are particularly distressing and a real threat for undocumented individuals and their families. While Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s commitment to the Welcoming City Ordinance remains unwavering, some officials in the second Trump administration threaten federal funding cuts to sanctuary cities like Chicago.

Unauthorized immigration into sanctuary cities is associated with markedly higher borrowing costs that can strain city finances, a fact conservative officials often cite to justify the removal of migrants from these jurisdictions. More migrants require more resources, in areas that include housing, education, and law enforcement. Increased federal funding might ease the financial burden on sanctuary cities, but such funding is unlikely. As it stands, cities can provide only partial sanctuary to migrants, in terms of public services as well as protection against deportation.

For migrants like Vanessa Olivera who fled Venezuela with her kids and was later bussed to Chicago, the threat of deportation to her home country is a terrifying prospect. A forced return to a situation marked by political persecution and an unstable economy is unsettling in many dimensions: Vanessa fears for her family members’ lives and their ability to obtain basic necessities like medication. The potential plight of families like Vanessa’s – many of whom are already involved in removal proceedings and awaiting court dates – has led community organizers and jurisdictions like Chicago to step up their efforts to fight against rigid federal immigration mandates. The costs of protecting migrants may be high, but community networks are hoping to protect as many individuals as possible.

While well-intentioned, sanctuary policy in cities like Chicago is still not enough, offering only partial relief to undocumented, long-term residents who live in constant fear that they’ll be deported. Individuals like Maria and Vanessa are left navigating an existence in limbo, contributing to a community they call home while being denied the security they deserve.