Immigration is currently a contentious topic in the USA, so it is important to address one relevant issue here. Legal immigration can be good in certain situations. (An example of when it is bad would be a company firing a whole department of American workers to replace them with H1-B visa workers; it’s currently legal, but not good for Americans other than those directly profiting from the change).

Sanctuary cities, however, represent institutionalized lawlessness. These are municipalities that have declared they refuse to enforce the law when it comes to immigration. Certain types of lawlessness might be fine with our readers, such as if a local or state government refuses to enforce an onerous gun control law or environmental regulation or other federal mandate. But be warned: if a government is willing to ignore the law in one direction, it is a precedent to ignore the law in other ways in the future which may negatively impact your freedoms.

We find particular risk in the sanctuary cities because the local government has declared that it intends to engage in lawlessness in order to protect people who are not even voting citizens and are currently in violation of the laws, in order to demonstrate the supposed virtuousness of those who pushed to ignore these laws.

A local government ignoring laws which it believes harms its own law-abiding citizens is one thing.

A local government ignoring laws to favor lawbreaking non-citizens over citizens is quite different.

And when the SHTF, would you rather be in a locale that puts local law-abiding citizens first, or lawbreaking non-citizens first?

Fortunately, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) offers a fairly up to date map and detail listing of all local governments announcing their lawless favoring of foreign lawbreakers over local citizens (e. g. sanctuary cities).

Screen-captured example from CIS interactive map.

The good news is that NO locales in the ID/MT/WY redoubt support this type of lawless disrespect of their locals.

The Redoubt puts their people first.

So, when assessing risks to your retreat location, be sure to weigh the risks of cities near the borders.

If you’re in the redoubt, then you’re not under a local government teaching foreigners that the law does not matter here. But how far do you think such folks in neighboring cities will travel in the event of a crisis? One hour drive? Two hours? Four hours?

Ultimately, the decision comes down to your own risk tolerance combined with qualities of your specific retreat property. Your retreat may be close to a border sanctuary city but difficult to reach, and maybe difficult to even find the house after arriving at the property. If your retreat is easy to defend and your personal armory is the envy of local law enforcement, then you might be comfortable with a closer risk. Even if you’re new to enjoying your second amendment rights, property-specific developments can reduce your risk exposure if you are close to an undesirable  border city.

So, unless this is a risk you simply cannot tolerate, use this resource to subjectively assess the risk exposure of your specific location and plan additional mitigating factors as needed.