USA TODAY International Edition
When ‘ sanctuary cities’ go too far, public safety suffers
Many immigration supporters laud “sanctuary cities” as beacons of humanity where local police refuse to turn undocumented immigrants over to federal officials.
But when such policies are carried to extremes — such as shielding people who have a history of serious crimes or who repeatedly sneak back into the USA — immigration advocates undermine their credibility by defending the indefensible.
President Trump’s crackdown on undocumented workers has turned “sanctuary” into a rallying cry for both sides in the immigration debate. But sanctuary covers a wide array of policies, making the issue more complex than the sound bites suggest.
For starters, no local or state government can offer absolute sanctuary to undocumented immigrants because federal authorities, under the law, can deport any immigrant simply for having entered the country illegally. Several hundred cities and counties refuse to detain immigrants for federal deportations. But even among these jurisdictions, there are wide variations, from sensible policies to irrational ones that endanger public safety.
A notorious example of irrationality occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony drug record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco county sheriff — despite being wanted by federal immigration authorities. Three months later, Juan Francisco Lopez- Sanchez allegedly shot and killed Kathryn Steinle in a San Francisco tourist area, setting off a national debate over sanctuary cities. Lopez- Sanchez, now awaiting trial, was freed not because of some loophole or foulup, but because the sheriff’s policy barred contact with federal immigration officials.
Fortunately, not many localities go this far. A study of more than 2,500 counties by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, which favors sanctuary, found that just 6% of counties would refuse to alert federal immigration authorities when an undocu- mented inmate is being released.
Other jurisdictions use sanctuary in a nuanced way.
These policies are designed simply to separate federal immigration enforcement from local policing so immigrants do not fear that any police interaction might end in deportation. The rationale? If immigrants see police as a tool for deportation, they will not report crimes or come forward as witnesses, even when they are victims. Such fears make communities more dangerous.
Trump’s order to punish sanctuary cities by taking away federal law enforcement grants has set off a scramble in all directions.
Last month, Miami- Dade County, where a majority of residents are foreign- born, dropped its sanctuary status. Several jurisdictions have sued in federal court to block the president’s order; San Francisco was in court last week pressing its case. And the California Senate is battling over a measure that could further limit police cooperation with immigration enforcement.
According to a recent Quinnipiac poll, more than half of voters want immigrants deported only if they have committed a “serious crime” — a policy that is both humane and sensible. The aim of local leaders should be to keep law- abiding immigrants safe and allow those who could endanger public safety to be deported.