‘Sanctuary’ status would clarifyMarin inclusiveness

The Marin IJ editorial published Oct. 2 headlined, “Marin has taken steps to limit ICE” is off base when it claims, with no evidence, “(Sheriff Robert) Doyle’s constituency is far larger than those sanctuary county advocates who turn out for county hearings.” This is a baseless assertion.

But more alarming is the editorial’s embrace of the sheriff’s narrative. It repeats Doyle’s talking points and comes to this bizarre conclusion: “Local law enforcement’s chief concern is to remove fear of deportation for those who are victims or witnesses of a crime.”

This is unsupported by data, absent from policy and contradicted by testimony from Marin residents who have come forward publicly (in local forums about the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds Act) and privately to family, friends and community to express deeply held fears about the sheriff’s department. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the non-White community to offer a shred of validation for the idea that Doyle’s “chief concern” is removing fear.

The board could have examined actual data. According to the Center for American Progress, a nonpartisan policy institute, “The data suggest that when local law enforcement focuses on keeping communities safe, rather than becoming entangled in federal immigration enforcement efforts, communities are safer and community members stay more engaged in the local economy. This in turn brings benefits to individual households, communities, counties, and the economy as a whole.”

Economic benefits aside, a Marin sanctuary policy would clarify where the county stands on inclusiveness. When the board dismisses activists as “pushing for labeling” rather than as genuine advocates for equity and justice, it does a disservice to all speak out on behalf of a better Marin.

— Kevin Morrison, Novato