SF Council committee oversteps with ‘sanctuary’
The decision by the Santa Fe City Council’s Immigration Committee to thumb its nose at President-elect Donald Trump’s incoming and yet to actually do anything administration by reiterating and expanding its proclaimed “sanctuary city” status may play well before the city’s immigrant community, legal and illegal, and their supporters.
But it goes too far in trying to limit how federal law is practiced within the city limits and could wind up costing the city millions in federal funding and legal expenses. It is politically inspired, especially in light of the Obama administration’s deportation record, and sends a bad message about adherence to the “rule of law.”
The six-page resolution was co-sponsored by City Councilors Renee Villarreal and Joseph Maestas, who said, “This is doubling down. We’re thumbing our nose at this incoming administration.” There certainly are avenues by which the city can help its immigrant population without engaging in high-stakes political theater.
And the council and supporters of the resolution might also want to consider that while the country is in great need of some form of comprehensive immigration reform, this resolution will do nothing to help produce it.
The resolution includes 10 policies intended to strengthen Santa Fe’s position as a so-called sanctuary city, including keeping people’s immigration status confidential, refusing access by federal immigration agents to “all non-public areas of city property” unless they have a warrant, and establishing a working group to “consider methods of providing protection and support” to immigrants.
Some of the policies detailed in the proposed resolution fly in the face of multimillion-dollar efforts by the administration of President Barack Obama and presumably his successor to protect American citizens not only from unauthorized entry of undocumented workers, but of terrorists bent on our destruction.
It’s also interesting that Santa Fe’s Immigration Committee did not see a need to beef up the sanctuary policy to these recommended extremes over the course of the Obama years, during which, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement numbers, a record 2.7 million people were deported.
Trump’s threat to strip federal funding from cities adopting “sanctuary” statutes apparently has little sway with supporters of the resolution, including former Santa Fe mayor David Coss, who told the committee, “If that’s all we’re worried about, shame on us.”
Of course, it’s easy not to be worried about what happens with other people’s money, especially taxpayers’ money.
But taxpayers, who no doubt would be called upon to replace the $6.1 million that city officials say the city receives from the federal government annually, might disagree.
And it’s apparent supporters of the expanded sanctuary rules expect to face and fight repercussions if it is enacted. Though Santa Fe has had an anti-discrimination ordinance since 1999, Jim Harrington, a retired attorney who has done volunteer work for the immigrant rights group Somos un Pueblo Unido, said the resolution “puts us in a more defensible (legal) position than current sanctuary policies.”
Of course, legal defenses can also be costly, but again, it’s just other people’s money.
The resolution next goes before the City Council’s Finance Committee on Jan. 17. If this feel-good but pitfall-strewn resolution makes it to the City Council later this month, the panel would do well to consider ways to strike a better balance.