SEEKING THE RULE OF LAW
One day maybe we’ll be able to look back at the late 2010s and chuckle about the time when some states believed they were within their rights to flout federal law and other states had to pass measures to certify that cities didn’t skirt state and federal laws to get their own way.
Right now, though, it doesn’t seem so funny.
It all has to do with illegal immigration — not legal immigration, as the states and cities that wish to disobey laws already in place would have you believe.
Exhibit A is New York, where Gov. Andrew Cuomo, in an upside-down world, called illegal immigrants “law-abiding residents” and said federal officials were exhibiting “lawlessness” in targeting illegal immigrants.
To protect the illegals and pad New York’s reputation as a sanctuary state, he sent a letter to federal immigration authorities Wednesday, telling them they had to alert state and local police before attempting any more arrests, and to leave some illegals alone altogether. He also issued an executive order telling federal immigration agents they couldn’t make arrests at state prisons and jails, and told his state agencies not to ask about anyone’s immigration status.
In other words, to use just one example, Cuomo wants to protect the most easily deportable illegal immigrants, the ones who broke the law to come into the country and then committed offenses to wind up in jails and prisons.
Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorities executed a targeted sweep in the New York City area, rounding up 225 people, 180 of whom had criminal records.
It was that raid, among other things, that swung Cuomo into action. He also is facing a Democratic re-election primary challenge from actress Cynthia Nixon, who wants to make New York a “real sanctuary state” and wants illegal immigrants to be given more privileges like driver’s licenses.
Sanctuary states, in general, adopt policies through legislation or executive authority that sever local criminal justice systems from federal immigration enforcement, limit the data they share with federal immigration authorities and offer legal representation for illegal immigrants facing deportation.
Meanwhile, in the Tennessee General Assembly, lawmakers put the final touches on a bill Wednesday that banned sanctuary city policies and sent it to Gov. Bill Haslam for his consideration.
Although the state currently does not have any municipalities that call themselves sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants, lawmakers wanted to take precautionary measures.
The bill, which easily passed both houses, would deny certain state economic and community grants to municipalities that adopt so-called “sanctuary city policies” and would require law enforcement agencies to enter into memorandums of agreement with federal officials concerning enforcement of federal immigration laws.
One opponent tried to take the emphasis off the sanctuary city aspect of the bill and personalize it, claiming it would keep individual immigrants from speaking freely with police. Another incorrectly termed it a “mass deportation bill.”
Neither were correct. The gist is to prevent crimes by illegal immigrants that have occurred in jurisdictions like California, which refuses to honor requests by federal immigration authorities to detain suspected illegal immigrants past their scheduled jail release dates.
While the bill is preventative, last year the Metro Nashville Council discussed but later dropped an ordinance restricting local agencies’ ability to cooperate with federal immigration authorities beyond what the law requires.
Just over a year ago, then-Chattanooga Police Chief Fred Fletcher said his department’s policy was not to ask “the immigration status of anybody we” encounter but said it does honor ICE-issued detainers or judge-issued warrants.
While states and cities are arguing the sanctuary of illegal immigrants, President Donald Trump finally got several tentative thumbs-up signs Wednesday from Supreme Court justices in a hearing on his five-nation temporary travel ban. Fulfilling a campaign promise to try to make Americans safer, he had issued a temporary ban days into his presidency on travel to the U.S. from certain terrorist-related countries.
Fifteen months later, some of the justices at least seemed to signal that whatever the then-candidate said on the campaign trail about Muslims in the terrorist-related countries had little relationship to whether there ought to be a temporary travel ban. The administration in previous court hearings has argued correctly that presidents have wide latitude in dealing with national security and immigration, and that the temporary ban does not mention Muslims and thus does not violate the Constitution.
The court is not expected to rule on the case for several months, but if the justices’ questions were any indication, they should provide a clue how they will rule.
And maybe someday we’ll all be able to look back to a time when the rule of law — combined with the compassion that has been an American hallmark — returns as a bedrock tenet in our cities, states and country.