Our view: Defenders of sanctuary cities go to extremes
To listen to public officials squabble over “sanctuary cities” is to hear halftruths and misleading boasts that do nothing to provide the safety that lawabiding immigrants and the American public deserve.
On one side are those who laud sanctuary cities as the epitome of humane treatment. In January, for example, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf vowed she’d go to jail to defend her city’s opposition to federal immigration raids after the City Council passed a resolution cutting off cooperation between police and federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). And California’s attorney general threatened to fine businesses that violate a section of the state’s sanctuary law by sharing information on immigrants with federal authorities.
At the other extreme is Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who rails against sanctuary cities, has threatened to withhold federal funds from several and has filed suit against California, calling its policy unconstitutional. The Justice Department has also been exploring ways to criminally charge state and local officials who limit cooperation. And at Tuesday’s White House roundtable on sanctuary cities, President Trump said they “put innocent Americans at the mercy of … hardened criminals.”
Both sides mischaracterize the advantages and the risks of sanctuary policies.
Used in a nuanced way, a sanctuary policy can separate federal immigration enforcement from local policing so undocumented immigrants who stay out of legal trouble won’t fear that any interaction with police can lead to deportation. Such fears prevent immigrants from coming forward as witnesses or reporting crimes such as domestic abuse, making communities more dangerous.
The trouble comes when a city or state goes to extremes by shielding immigrants who have a history of serious crimes or who repeatedly sneak back in the USA. At that point, advocates undermine their case by seeking to defend the indefensible.
California, for example, refuses to detain immigrants who have run-ins with the law — except in the rarest of circumstances — for federal deportations. The most notorious example of what can happen in these circumstances occurred in 2015, when an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy felony record and repeated illegal entries into the USA after deportation was freed by the San Francisco County Sheriff. Three months later, he was charged with fatally shooting a woman in San Francisco’s tourist area.
Differences won’t be resolved by threats to jail public officials for passing laws in their own cities and states. Meanwhile, California gains no safety for its residents by playing word games over holding serious criminals for immigration authorities.
What the public needs are sensible, humane policies that keep law-abiding immigrants safe from unfair deportations, while keeping residents safe from those who endanger public safety.