On Sanctuary Cities

The term in question refers to municipal jurisdictions, typically in North America and Western Europe, that limit their cooperation with the national government's effort to enforce immigration law. The thought process is that illegal immigrants will be able to comply in reporting crimes without the fear of being deported, utilizing medical services and enrolling their children in school[i]. On some level, this makes sense. On the other hand, it is intolerable for a justice system on a local level can simply ignore laws set in place at a Federal level. I will extend an olive branch on this matter: sometimes what is determined “legal” is not necessarily what is deemed “ethical”. Not a person on the planet would deem a sence of ethical positivity towards taking a child away from their family who face deportation. However, in order to say this, one must place a double-standard on Abortion, where the father not only has no say in this matter, but is not legally required to be informed that the procedure took place. We can’t have it both ways, people. In the same manner as before, we’ll make the attempt to uncover the truth in this matter, way the pros and cons, and make a final judgement only when all the facts are assembled.

Shall we?

            Believe it or not, sanctuary city history goes back thousands of years. In the Book of Numbers, the children of Israel were ordered to establish such cities where those who committed manslaughter could be safe from their families[ii]. In 392 AD, Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I set up sanctuaries under church control. In AD 600 in medieval England, churches were given a general right of sanctuary, and some cities were set up as sanctuaries by Royal charter. Most of those fleeing to these sanctuaries were those who were wrongly committed or were fleeing vigilante justice, quite a commonplace in a time where the idea of “guilty until proven innocent” was the chosen way to perform law. The sanctuary city movement took place in the 1980s to challenge the US government’s refusal to grant asylum to certain Central American refugees. These asylum seekers were arriving from countries in Central America like El Salvador and Guatemala that were politically unstable. The first groups to reach out to those seeking asylum were faith-based groups, who were offering aid throughout the Southwest. A milestone in the U.S. sanctuary city movement occurred in 1985 in San Francisco, which passed the largely symbolic “City of Refuge” resolution. The resolution was followed the same year by an ordinance which prohibited the use of city funds and resources to assist federal immigration enforcement–the defining characteristic of a sanctuary city in the U.S. As of 2018, more than 560 cities, states and counties considered themselves sanctuaries.

            One of the biggest arguments for the Sanctuary movement is that such a policy encourages a better relationship between illegal immigrants and law enforcement, thus eliminating the fear of reporting crime and being turned in themselves. This makes sense, considering that one of the most common reasons illegals are found and sent to ICE is due to a report of a crime. This is further demonstrated due to the fact that 70% of undocumented immigrants and 44% of Latinos surveyed are less likely to report if they were the victim of crime and 45% of Latinos are less likely report crimes or voluntarily offer information about a crime for fear police officers would learn about their immigration status. This statement is crucial, especially considering that The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 would allow minor crimes, such as shoplifting, to be grounds for possible deportation. Section 287(g) of Homeland Security makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with the federal government to enforce immigration law, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities. This isn’t helped by the fact that the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution provides for the separation of federal and state powers. According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Amendment prevents the "federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, like immigration," and, thus, Congress cannot compel state or local governments to collect immigration status information in order to share it with the federal government. The final argument for such policy is due to the indiscrimination of such laws deporting children who have lived in this country since birth. Libby Schaaf, Mayor of Oakland, CA, said, "I like to compare this to conscientious objector status. We are not going to use our resources to enforce what we believe are unjust immigration laws”.

            Now, to those who oppose the above. Many, including the President, oppose such matters because they claim Sanctuary status does not aid in the safety of the American populous. For one, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented immigrant, had seven felony convictions in the United States and had been deported from the country five times. Yet, the city of San Francisco declined to detain him for ICE officials and released him into the community. In a tragic turn of events, Lopez-Sanchez was charged with the murder of Katie Steinle in San Francisco in 2015. It does not help those which are Pro-Sanctuary that statistics show that, out of 235,413 people detained by ICE in the same year, 138,893 of them had been convicted of a crime[iii]. Some believe that a sanctuary status is giving leniency towards those which are committing a crime of being in our country illegally, making it difficult to justify charging them with any other crime when their very existence is a crime.

            When it comes down to it, like it or not, if one is in this country illegally, they are committing a crime. Some may claim that this is a cruel idea, but I would go further. The Constitution is the law of the American people, a place where our rights are written and the law is crafted to uphold the Constitution for the American people. Notice, however, I said “American People”. If someone is an illegal, they do not have the right to remain silent. They do not have a right to an attorney, do not have the right for a speedy and public trial and do not have a right to not self-incriminate. In truth, they do not have any rights under the law. I do not say this to be cruel, I am simply following what is written. If the Mayors of these cities craft ways for those illegal immigrants to avoid ICE, then they are co-conspirators and should be brought to justice. Those elected to such positions look out for the best interests of the American people, not all people. I close with this: America has become entirely too inclusive. This makes sense to a point, seeing that America is a melting pot of cultures, religions and ideas. However, the inclusiveness is limited to those who are citizens of this country, those who pay taxes and have a Social Security or Green Card. The idea is simple: Not our people, not our problem.

[i] Dallas County sheriff eases immigration holds on minor offenses". The Dallas Morning News. October 11, 2015.

[ii]    Metzger, Bruce M.; Coogan, Michael D., eds. (1993). The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford University Press. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-19-504645-8.

[iii] Heather Mac Donald, "The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave," city-journal.org, Winter 2004