Sanctuary city policy serves no purpose
The Trump administration’s campaign against “sanctuary cities” probably isn’t legal, and it certainly isn’t helpful on the issue of immigration.
In a memo last May, Attorney General Jeff Sessions defined “sanctuary city” — descriptions of which have shifted — as any local government that “willfully refuses to comply” with a section of immigration law that requires local government to share information about individuals’ immigration status with federal officials. Sessions said the departments of Justice and Homeland Security could withhold grants from governments that don’t comply.
The courts have sided mostly against the administration. Miami-Dade County caved quickly when President Trump announced the crackdown in an executive order five days after taking office. After a Haitian national facing deportation for traffic violations challenged the county’s decision, Miami-Dade County Circuit Court Judge Milton Hirsch ruled that only the federal government can enforce immigration law.
Hirsch’s ruling is binding only in his court. In April, however, U.S. District Judge William Orrick blocked the crackdown from taking effect nationwide. Orrick reiterated his position in a hearing last month, after the Department of Justice argued that Sessions’ memo had narrowed the program’s focus from Trump’s vague order. This month, a federal judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit by that state against Travis County, which had ignored the state legislature’s ban on sanctuary cities.
As in the Miami-Dade case, the legal issue is alleged federal government overreach. Though administration officials have said they want only status reports, Orrick said the government could further demand that counties and cities detain jail inmates for Immigrations and Customs Enforcement.
Texas argued, with help from DOJ lawyers, that the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling on Arizona’s controversial immigration law allows states to prohibit sanctuary cities. This year, the Florida House passed a bill similar to the one in Texas, but it died in the Senate.
Trump and Sessions claim the sanctuary cities policy can prevent crimes committed by people who are in the country illegally. Trump often cites the July 2015 murder of Kathryn Steinle. She was killed in San Francisco by a Mexican national who had been deported five times. San Francisco was one of the first sanctuary cities.
Despite that tragedy — which a bureaucratic mix-up might have allowed to happen — anecdotes don’t always justify a policy. The libertarian Cato Institute released a study in March showing that the incarceration rate for illegal immigrants was roughly half that for U.S. citizens.
The rate would be even lower, Cato said, without factoring in the crime of illegal entry. It’s a misdemeanor for the first violation and a felony after that. The New York Times used data from the Migration Policy Institute to show that the felony rate for illegal immigrants is more than 50 percent lower than it is for citizens.
Pushback also has come from school districts. Broward and Palm Beach counties require a warrant for ICE agents to enter a school or show up at the site of a school-related activity. Both districts want schools to be safe places for students, rather than have them caught up in immigration politics.
Having children in school better serves the community than seeking to deport them. Two decades ago, after Congress got tough on immigration status, South Florida principals reported that some students were in class one day and gone the next.
Similarly, local law enforcement officials generally agree that their communities benefit from a focus on crime, not immigration status. Writing last March for The Los Angeles Times, Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum listed several examples of illegal immigrants helping police.
In Tucson, Ariz., a man prevented the kidnapping of children in a car. In Los Angeles, another man helped police arrest a gang member. Both men cooperated, police said, because they did not have to fear deportation. “Sanctuary cities,” Wexler wrote, “are hardly sanctuaries for any criminals. Because of the trust and cooperation they have developed with undocumented immigrants, police in these cities are often able to identify, arrest and prosecute dangerous offenders who might otherwise still be on the streets victimizing residents — both citizens and undocumented immigrants.”
Local governments can’t solve the country’s immigration problems. Only Washington can, but progress remains stalled.
The 2013 comprehensive bill that passed the Senate with strong bipartisan support didn’t get even a hearing in the Republicancontrolled House. As a presidential candidate, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., ran from that legislation he helped to craft and embraced punishment for sanctuary cities.
Last week, Trump vowed to shut down the government if Congress doesn’t approve a down payment on his wall with Mexico, even though most Americans oppose the project and more people here illegally have overstayed visas, not crossed from Mexico.
Congress should willfully refuse to comply with Trump. Then lawmakers should write immigration reform legislation that makes sanctuary cities obsolete.
Editorials are the opinion of the Sun Sentinel Editorial Board and written by one of its members or a designee. The Editorial Board consists of Editorial Page Editor Rosemary O’Hara, Elana Simms, Gary Stein, Andy Reid, and Editor-in-Chief Howard Saltz.