All sanctuary city arguments bad

The principal arguments for and against a state constitutional ban against sanctuary cities are both wrong.

The principal argument in favor is that such a ban is necessary to support the rule of law. Until reports late Thursday that the effort has been halted, Gov. Doug Ducey’s case rested upon that assertion and it suffused a recent opinion column by the prime House sponsor of the proposed amendment, T.J. Shope.

This, however, ignores the dual sovereignty of the national government and the various state governments that is at the heart of our federalist system.

Simply put, the federal government cannot commandeer the resources of state and local governments for federal purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court recently reinforced this fundamental constitutional principle when it held that the federal government, under Obamacare, couldn’t require state governments to expand coverage of the Medicaid program. Doing so had to be a voluntary, and independent, decision by state governments.

Similarly, under our rule of law, whether state and local governments assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws is a decision wholly left to state and local officials. Doing so might be advisable and prudent. But refusing to do so isn’t a violation of the rule of law under our constitutional structure, properly understood.

The principal argument against is that the proposed constitutional amendment is racist. That’s inaccurate and irresponsible.

There’s nothing per se racist about wanting our immigration laws to be enforced as written. There is nothing per se racist about wanting state and local law enforcement to cooperate to the maximum extent permitted in enforcing federal immigration laws.

Some may make racially tinged arguments in favor of these positions. And some may be motivated to vote in favor of them out of racial animus.

But the policies themselves are not racist. Nor is it a fair or accurate general description of those advocating and favoring them.

The left has robbed the words “racist” and “racism” of their punch through indiscriminate use. These days, when anyone right of center hears the words, there is no assumption that someone has done something wrong or objectionable. The assumption is that some bunch of leftists are having a temper tantrum. I suspect the same is increasingly true among the center-left as well.

For those whose families and communities are ripped apart by the fear of deportations, an emotional response to policies that increase that risk is understandable.

However, the argument that existing immigration laws should be ignored isn’t a particularly compelling one. And the argument that the law should be changed to provide amnesty to most of those currently living in the country illegally, which I favor, isn’t advanced much by denouncing anyone wanting current law enforced as racist. President Donald Trump isn’t the only divisive force in the immigration debate.

Now, current Arizona law already requires that state and local officials cooperate to the maximum extent permitted with federal immigration law enforcement. The key element of that cooperation is honoring detainer requests. That’s when an illegal immigrant is being held in a state prison or local jail and the feds asked that they be detained for deportation proceedings rather than released when their time is served. Failure to honor such detainer requests is creating public safety issues in sanctuary cities across the country.

But all Arizona detention facilities are honoring such detainer requests and there is no prospect of that changing.

There is a thin policy rationale for moving the requirement of immigration cooperation from statute to the state Constitution. There is some outside chance that some charter city might declare itself a sanctuary city and a judge would say that the state can’t order it otherwise.

But the true motivation for the proposal was political. Republicans wanted something on the ballot that would bring out base voters in the election.

As a political tactic, it would have probably backfired. With Trump on the ballot, immigration restrictionists need no additional incentive. He’s their man.

It was far more likely to spur turnout among opponents and Latinos who regard it as an attack on their community. And alienate independents, since the measure can easily be characterized as an unnecessary and divisive gesture that disserves the state.

The GOP leadership was wise to halt the effort. They were inviting an ugly election debate for little potential gain, substantively or politically.