President-elect Trump has promised to make enforcement of immigration law a top priority of his administration, with a particular emphasis on deporting approximately two million illegal aliens who, in addition to breaking our immigration laws, have committed violent crimes and other serious offenses. One step he promises is some kind of crackdown on sanctuary cities and other jurisdictions which shield illegal aliens from deportation by refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
It is amazing that a proposal to uphold the rule of law and protect American citizens from foreign criminals would be controversial. Nevertheless, quite a number of sanctuary city mayors and other officials are digging in their heels and vowing to defend their policy. One is Seattle Mayor Ed Murray who said, “Seattle has always been a welcoming city. The last thing I want is for us to start turning on our neighbors.” Certainly it would be nice if the mayor had some neighborly feelings to spare for the citizens whose safety he’s supposed to provide.
Some sanctuary officials claim that under the Constitution the federal government cannot force them to implement federal policies. That is a valid principle, but it is not the principle that applies in this case. Here the issue is states and localities obstructing federal law enforcement. The Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 USC 1372) specifically forbids such obstruction.
Clearly some sanctuary jurisdictions are in violation of that law. President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to take steps to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities. Just how much is not clear, because the Supreme Court has ruled that the funding cuts must be related to the purpose of the funding. Presumably, at least, the defiance of federal law enforcement would call for termination of Department of Justice grants.
Something else the Trump Administration can do is file lawsuits against the offending jurisdictions. No doubt this will enrage illegal alien advocates, but their outrage in most instances will be most ironic. When states and localities some years ago were passing laws to allow their police forces to assist federal enforcement, the Obama Administration sued them saying that they had no authority of their own to assist the feds.
Illegal alien supporters strongly concurred, saying that immigration enforcement should be strictly federal, and not involve a patchwork of state and local statutes. That claim notwithstanding, the laws that triggered the lawsuits were carefully crafted to conform to federal law. Now the alien advocates claim that a patchwork of laws is just fine – even when they blatantly defy federal authority.
As they ignore the clear requirement of the law, sanctuary defenders often appeal to practicality to support their position. Commonly they claim that local cooperation with federal enforcement will have a “chilling effect” on police relations with immigrant communities. Supposedly illegal aliens will refuse to report crimes for fear they will be deported if they step forward. But extensive evidence shows little basis for this concern.
Another claim is that working with federal enforcement places a financial burden on states and localities. It is an argument which ignores the overall savings and benefits that result from the removal of criminal aliens. One of the most obvious benefits is greater public safety.
Unfortunately, the sanctuary side is not about to yield. Eighteen sanctuary cities, including New York, Chicago and San Francisco, have promised to defend their policies against whatever actions the Trump administration decides to take. And prominent voices of the corporate media fully support their defiance. Of sanctuary jurisdictions, The New York Times recently expressed hope that “these places stand firm at a time when cherished American ideals are under siege.”
If the Times editors truly believe that lawlessness and solicitude for foreign criminals are “American ideals,” one must conclude that their perspective is profoundly un-American.