Sanctuary cities: controversial since the 1980s

            Sanctuary city policies in the U.S. have a storied history that dates back to the 1980s, when American churches pioneered a sanctuary movement. Churches that participated in that movement hoped to offer sanctuary to Central American immigrants who were fleeing civil war in their home countries and entering the U.S. illegally.  Sanctuary cities emerged in cities where these churches were active, and roughly thirty sanctuary cities exist in the U.S. today. According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, those cities are:

Anchorage, AK, Fairbanks, AK, Chandler, AZ, Fresno, CA, Los Angeles, CA, San Diego, CA, San Francisco, CA, Sonoma County, CA, Evanston, IL, Cicero, IL, Cambridge, MA, Orleans, MA, Portland, ME, Baltimore, MD, Takoma Park, MD, Ann Arbor, MI, Detroit, MI, Minneapolis, MN, Durham, NC, Albuquerque, NM, Aztec, NM, Rio Arriba, County, NM, Sante Fe, NM, New York, NY, Ashland, OR, Gaston, OR, Marion County, OR, Austin, TX, Houston, TX, Katy, TX, Seattle, WA, and Madison, WI.

Though slightly outdated, the below map from the National Immigration 

Law Center depicts most of the U.S. sanctuary cities. 

            Sanctuary city proponents claim that enforcing immigration laws is a responsibility that the federal government – not local or state governments – should bear. Ironically, the federal government has sent mixed messages on illegal immigration and sanctuary cities since those issues first rose to national prominence. On one hand, sanctuary cities’ ability to aid immigrants was strengthened in 1982 in Plyler vs. Doe. The Supreme Court used that case to declare that children born to illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to access public education.

On the other hand, the federal government has historically argued that sanctuary city policies are at odds with national security policies. In 2007, the Washington Times reported that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said, “his agency will not tolerate interference by so-called “sanctuary cities” when it comes to hiring illegal aliens.” At the time, Chertoff was defending his agency’s enforcement of a Basic Pilot Program that required employers to verify new employees’ legal status before hiring them.  Furthermore, the U.S. House of Representatives has debated several bills over the past decade that have threatened to deny federal funding to cities with sanctuary city policies.

In the Texas legislature, the state's main sanctuary city bill (HB 12) remains before the State Affairs committee. Of all the legislation declared to be emergency issues by Governor Perry, the sanctuary city bill is the only emergency issue that has not yet made it to the House floor. With only six weeks left in the regular legislative session, time is running short. See below for a sample of testimony before the House State Affairs Committee.

By Kimberly Dena

Pressing national debate over immigration

Two western states, two very different immigration policies. A prominent sanctuary city, San Francisco’s welcomes immigrants with open arms regardless of their official legal status. Arizona, on the other hand, has drawn intense public scrutiny for its bold stance against illegal immigration. These two cities represent opposite extremes in the polarizing national debate over illegal immigration.

The total estimated number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. dropped in 2010, but the number remains high. According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 10.8 million illegal immigrants currently live in the U.S (click here for the report). Nationally, the combined annual cost burden created by illegal immigration at the federal, state, and local level amounts to roughly $113 billion, and education represents the largest share of that cost.

Most observers agree that illegal immigration is a pressing policy problem. They disagree, however, on the proper solution for the situation. San Francisco exemplifies the kind of sanctuary cities that some Texas lawmakers are currently working to avoid. According to the San Francisco Examiner:

“San Francisco enacted a sanctuary policy in 1989 that aims to foster an environment in which undocumented immigrants feel safe enough to engage with law enforcement officials and local government without fear of deportation. The policy bars city employees from using any funds or resources to assist in federal enforcement of immigration law, but there are exceptions.”

Pro-immigration activists applaud San Francisco’s “openness,” but the policy is criticized by pro-immigration law activists who say it subverts federal laws and sustains the problem. Even the debate within San Francisco has escalated recently. San Francisco’s are wrestling with the question of how to handle juvenile illegal immigrants who are accused of felonies. Previously, these juveniles were not reported to immigration authorities. However, as violent crimes committed by juvenile immigrants are gaining attention, San Francisco’s authorities are feeling pressured to enact stricter, less immigrant-friendly standards

Conversely, Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer has pioneered tough, pro-immigration law reforms. In 2010, she signed into law a bill designed to identify and prosecute illegal immigrants. The law empowered Arizona law enforcement officers the authority to detain suspected illegal immigrants. Pro- immigration activists responded immediately and vocally. Demonstrators gathered in the state’s capital and President Obama instantly expressed his opposition. Mexican authorities even became involved by questioning the state of Mexican-Arizona relations. Supporters say that Arizona has mustered up the courage to face a major crisis head on.

Below: Gov. Brewer discusses a meeting with President Obama over immigration.

Despite the political division and high costs associated with tackling sensitive issues like sanctuary cities, one thing is certain; the problem will have to be addressed eventually. For states like California and Texas – states with significant budget crises and high illegal immigrant populations – the time to find viable compromises on sanctuary cities and illegal immigration is rapidly looming.

Sanctuary cities may cost lives

Houston police officer Officer Rodney Johnson once saved several children who were trapped in a burning building. On September 21, 2006, Johnson’s five children were left fatherless after an illegal immigrant gunned down Johnson during a routine traffic stop. A twelve-year veteran of the Houston police force, Johnson’s life was one dedicated to service and to family.

The photo tribute below showcases the impact of Johnson’s death.

Johnson isn’t the only decorated Houston police officer whose life has been cut short or endangered by violent acts perpetrated by illegal immigrants. More recently, Officer Nash Patel was seriously injured  during a raid on an illegal immigrant drug dealer. Like Johnson, Patel had demonstrated extraordinary bravery during his long tenure with the Houston Police Department.

Some Texas politicians allege that Houston should be considered a sanctuary city because law enforcement officers are not allowed to ask suspects questions related to their immigration statuses. The result? Criminal suspects who immigrate illegally to the U.S and who should be subject to deportation often slip through law enforcement’s grasp and remain stateside, at great risk to the communities in which they live.

Pictured above: the scene of Officer Patel's shooting.

Johnson’s killer and Patel’s assailant both had prior run-ins with the law. Yet, both managed to re-enter and remain in the U.S. undetected. Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt described the illegal immigrant who killed Johnson by saying, “The subject was deported, and yet he came back, so if the government fulfilled their responsibility of protecting the border we would probably not be standing here today.”

Certainly, police officers take necessary risks every day in the course of their work. Likewise, not all illegal immigrants commit acts of violence. However, these stories illustrate the price that cities sometimes pay when they become lax in enforcing federal immigration laws. These are also the stories that Texas advocates for stricter laws against illegal immigration, including sanctuary cities, use to garner support for their legislation.

The proposals currently before the legislature typically fall into two categories:

•       Amending current laws to ensure cities cannot have policies that prevent officials from upholding either state or federal drug laws
•       Passing new laws under which cities cannot explicitly oppose state or federal immigration laws.

Senate Bill 11 and correlating House Bill 12 are two of the most prominent anti-sanctuary cities being considered this session. SB 11 is before the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee, and HB 12 has moved to the State Affairs committee. A public hearing for HB 12 is scheduled for March 22.

It is still too early to predict the chance that these bills will pass in this session. One thing we do know is that legislators will likely find themselves caught in the crossfire between Hispanic constituencies who oppose such measures and mounting public support for tougher immigration laws among other constituencies.

- By Kimberly Dena