Unpacking "Sanctuary Cities"

The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.

In the Democratic presidential candidates' debate at Dartmouth on September 26, 2007, Hillary & Co. were asked if they would "allow sanctuary cities to exist." (Tim Russert's odd locution, not mine.) The problem is the unspoken assumption that everyone knows what a "sanctuary city" is.

Like "anchor babies," the term "sanctuary cities" is the kind of phrase you can't really put your finger on, other than to say it has something to do with immigration and must be bad. It's a shame none of the candidates called a time-out to ask for a definition. Let's give it a try now.

The "sanctuary" part comes from the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s, in which churches gave shelter to asylum-seekers fleeing the wars in Central America. The churches found scriptural authority for the practice in ancient Greek and Roman texts, and in the Old Testament. The feds, unimpressed by scripture, sent several movement activists to the pen for "harboring" under federal criminal law.

As the Central American wars wound down, the Sanctuary Movement cooled as well, but the notion of a type of safe haven for immigrants took hold, and a few cities enacted policies designed to keep local police focussed on enforcing local criminal laws, not federal immigration law. Many local police chiefs supported the idea, hoping crime victims and witnesses would feel free to rely on the police no matter what their immigration status. A typical example of such a policy is the L.A.P.D.'s "Special Order 40," (actually dating back to 1979) under which "officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person."

While many cities still have such policies in force, some (including L.A.'s Special Order 40) are under political and legal attack, as more localities try to fill the "enforcement gap" caused by the feds' failure to enforce existing law, and Congress' failure to enact comprehensive reform. These local efforts are meeting stiff legal resistance: so far most courts say the field of immigration is "preempted" by federal law.

At the same time, some states and cities have partnered with ICE in specific "287(g)" programs, named after the federal statute enabling the feds to train state and local cops in how to enforce some federal immigration laws. (A recent excursion on Long Island suggests more training may be in order, at least on the ICE side.)

Now, back to the candidates. If elected President, would they permit cities to continue "sanctuary" policies? (P.S., ignore the unchallenged assertion by Russert and Alison King
that such policies "violate federal law." They do no such thing, and again, shame on the candidates for not spotting this gaffe.)

Richardson: Yes.

Biden: No.

Dodd: Yes.

Kucinich: Yes.

Obama: Deftly avoided saying yes or no; would push Congress to pass comprehensive reform.

Clinton: Yes.

Gravel: Yes. (I think.)

(Here, you really need to check out the "Analyzing the Details" tool ginned up by the New York Times; you can read the full transcript, pinpoint individual words, and listen or watch the video, all at once. The Times has also summarized all the candidates' positions on immigration in an "Issue Guide.")

All in all, the few minutes spent on "Sanctuary Cities" at Dartmouth shed neither light nor heat, and that's probably just what the front-runners intended.

Alex Koppelman just posted a long piece to Salon.com detailing pending bills in Congress that would strip "sanctuary cities" of anti-terrorism funding. While noting that "punishing sanctuary cities with legislation has a clear political upside," the cure may be worse than the disease: "In a September hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, under questioning from [Ginny] Brown-Waite [R.-Fla.] about sanctuary cities and the potential effect of bills like hers, said flatly, "I'm not aware of any city, although I may be wrong, that actually interferes with our ability to enforce the law.""

This Just In: How far from the border do you have to be to avoid the "sanctuary city" tag? Apparently even Fairbanks, Alaska, isn't far enough.

Read more OffTheBus coverage here.

Comments

[ConradGaarder]

What is an American? To people like Clinton and Kucinich it's anyone, anywhere in the world, who woke up this morning and thought to himself: "I'm going to go live in the United States."
If you doubt that,just ask them. They'll tell you that an American is anyone "who shares the dream of living in a free society, and who respects the right of others to enjoy the blessings of liberty under our Constitution blah, blah, blah."
In in other words, we, the people whose ancestors actually did create this country, don't count for anything. It's only the continual addition of foreigners that gives meaning and identity to the country, according to them.
What a shame that these candidates don't have any awareness that there is, or was, an American identity, nor any appreciation,for that matter, of the uniquely rich and wonderful character of what was the Mexican culture, and cannot see that this mass abandonment of one country and invasion of another will have the unintended effect of destroying both.

[Pdubya]

Why even have a definition of "illegal"? I do not fault Mexicans for finding opportunity where it exists. My great grandparents stood in line to become citizens because that WAS the opportunity - even before our "great" entitlement state. Take away the freebies, enforce the laws on the books, get rid of NAFTA and our immigration issue would disappear. Then, we would WELCOME immigrants as we once did.

[Overd0g]

Same with me. When I find "opportunity" in the form of an open cash register, I (like you) am the first to reach in and grab all I can. After all, I've gotta feed my family!

[TXfemmom]

We have a situation in Texas where an international court has weighed in and Bush is backing the order of the court to stop the execution of a criminal, and in this case a heinous one, from being executed. This is because the young man never brought up his immigration status at his arrest, or at any time, until after he was convicted.

Texas uses the death penalty way too much, but I am familiary with what this fellow and his fellow gang members did, and it was heinous, the exact definition of what the death penalty should address.

This man had lived in the United States, having come here with his family from one of the so-called santuary-seeking periods and spoke English, attended school here, and JOINED A HORRIBLE GANG. The police never asked his status, because they were not permitted to do so in Houston, at the time. Now, this man, and Mexico, are louding disputing the correctness of the United States actually punishing him for his behavior.

First of all, Mexico doesn't want any of its' undocumented workers here in the United States confronted about their status, and then they scream bloody murder if they are convicted and HAVEN'T BEEN AFFORDED SPECIAL PROTECTIONS BECAUSE OF THEIR UNDOCUMENTED STATUS.

For me, this is enough to warrant sending back every last undocumented person until they decide that in coming here, they agree to live by our laws, to obey them, and to stop thinking that they deserve special treatment.

[QM2SS]

Sanctuary Cities? Sanctuary from what? It is disingenuous of you to compare the illegal immigrants, primarily Mexicans, who are invading our nation with those displaced families from the Central American conflicts. The Mexicans swarming across our borders illegally are not persecuted in their country for their political or religious beliefs. They are not escaping the devastation and ravages of war. They are taking the easy way out because it appears that the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. When we, in this country, felt we were not being represented fairly by the government we paid taxes to, we solicited to that entity for redress of grievances. When all else failed we revolted, formed our own country, and through fighting, dying, struggle and sacrifice proceeded to build one of the greatest nations on the face of the earth. It is incumbent upon the Mexicans to do the same thing in their own country. They have demonstrated their alleged national pride by flying Mexican flags by the thousands in marches throughout this nation, but don't seem to have taken up the banner in their own. This is not a sanctuary issue to protect the persecuted, this is an invasion issue. An invasion that has filled up our prisons, over-burdened our social services facilities, overwhelmed and closed our hospitals and dumbed down our educational system. I believe sanctuary is an essential, and even mandated, part of our heritage and we should take pride in our ability to offer protection and safety to those who are displaced by the ravages of war and hunger. If we owe anyone this helping hand it should be the tens of thousands of Iraqis devastated and displaced by the present conflict in their country. No matter how you compare it, Mexicans illegally in this country are way down on the list, particularly 20 million of them.

[SpencerCat]

"An invasion that has filled up our prisons"

This keeps being repeated but it's not true.
The prison population is 6% Hispanic compared to general population 7% Hispanic.

Let's stick to facts.

[elkabong]

You've probably never asked yourself why conservative media always focuses so intensely on the poorest and/or weakest in any conflict as being the root of the problem.

They rarely, if ever, focus on the flag-wavin­g-yellow-r­ibbon-car-­magnet-lap­el-pin business men and women who would rather maximize their PROFITS than pay a living wage to legal Americans.

Try some really severe penalties for the EMPLOYERS: No jobs = no illegals.

Then all you have to do is get used to paying two dollars for an apple.

[babylonandon]

As a fanatic COnservative, I totally agree with you.

It would be fantastic to see some of these scumbag corporate pirates and slavers being dragged out of the company offices in shackles, face all bloodied and teeth missing, getting his or her head smashed with a nightstick about every 3 or 4 steps, on their way to a lockup to face treason charges.

I'll pay $15 for a cabbage if it means ending this crap.

[Hallucinocynic]

I agree with Overd0g: anyone who isn't a native American - this means any European, Asian, Hispanic or African American - MUST leave the North American continent and return to their point of origin...unless they can document that their family has been here for at least 12,000 years.

Plus which, this will invigorate the transportation and shipping industries...

[ufcfanvt]

So how many illegals are OK to come here?
The figure by the govt is 12Mill right now. Many studies say there could be as many as 39 million.
Can we support an extra 150 million illegals?
I'd like to know what your tipping point is.

[tgood]

Based on the logic of Hallucinocynic, people would have died out not long after their creation because they didn't have the "right" to move from continents in the early stages of mankind in order to seek food.

People would never have the right to form a government, create laws and would preserve the right to battle one another for food, on a daily basis. There would be no legal system, no schools, no shared efforts by people who try to make a difference in this world. So, instead of debating these immigration policies and finding a workable solution , each person would have the right to attack and kill anyone who owned a home they couldn't document as having owned for the past 12,000 years. LOL. . What a lovely scenario.

I honestly wish those who push the pro amnesty, open border policy could at least make a statement that didn't prove once again that we don't need to import ignorance--we have a home grown supply already.

[Hallucinocynic]

tgood, you probably didn't understand me because my tongue was planted, firmly, in cheek...

But, since you brought up the "right" of people to move from continent to continent (assuming you're making the same exact reference to the demographic shift across the land bridge 10,000 BCE) I feel compelled to respond:

Since 1492 the North American continent has been secured almost always at the point of an arrow, spear, gun or cannon. Setting aside those early continental settlers who desired peaceful assimilation, there are enough historic examples to note that violence has generally been the prime MO in the acquisition of land or territory. You talk about preserving the "right to battle one another for food," a curious statement because in a civilized society there would be no need to fight one another for food, or any other necessity. Moreover, it's entirely specious to conclude that if no people had migrated, there would be no legal system, schools or other products of society. But, set that aside and note this:

Because of organized religion, and its regimented, thought-constrained adherents, there are more people than we can currently feed living on this planet. Nearly half of those who are living today lack adequate food, water, housing or medical care. Yet, humans continue to breed as though it is their "right" to overpopulate a world with finite resources.

We get so steamed up because Mexicans and Central Americans want some economic relief in order to feed their families. IF you want to solve that problem, start investigating the ways to improve the economic lot of Mexico and Central America (and don't - DON'T - insist that those problems aren't ours).

ufcfanvt - you ask what my tipping point is? Well, we passed it about 26 years ago when Reagan and his henchmen began to work toward the dehumanization of American democracy. You can't have it both ways, you can be humanistic and work toward a GLOBAL solution, or you can be nationalistic and work toward a world where all other peoples kowtow to and support an American Dream to which they can't belong.

[ufcfanvt]

You didn't really define what a sanctuary city is either. What you failed to address is:
In Va. Beach, if you're an illegal alien and caught drunk driving SEVERAL times, you will not be reported to the Feds even once!
That is their policy as stated by the mayor and the police chief.
No one has suggested deporting anyone for reporting a crime, but when you commit one, you should have to prove you're here legally, or get out!

[liveandlearn]

we need sanctuary cities comprised of iraqi refugees. there are about four million of them, and life for them is not easy. the united states owes these dislocated people that much.

[Overd0g]

So Biden is the only non-traitor. That's good to know.