Sanctuary! Sanctuary! (Part II)
Originally published August 26, 2007
Don Kornreich http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sectio ... ryID=64234

The sanctuary movement, which seeks to provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants regardless of their country of origin, started in the 1970s and has grown steadily since then. Recent accounts (see OJJPAC.org) set the number of sanctuary cities at about 115, with California leading the way with 28.
Among the larger sanctuary cities are: Phoenix, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Denver, Miami, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Minneapolis, Newark, Jersey City, Albuquerque, New York City, Charlotte, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, Seattle, and Washington D. C. In Maryland, in addition to Baltimore, Gaithersburg and Takoma Park are listed as sanctuary cities.

The sanctuary movement received additional impetus with the federal government's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and the strengthening of immigration enforcement. In reaction to the Patriot Act, and its perceived restrictions on civil liberties, various cities declared themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Sanctuary cities simply ignore federal immigration laws or act to nullify the execution of those laws. Some cities expressly forbid their employees to inquire about a person's citizenship, and refuse to report any information relating to that status to federal authorities. For example, the mayor of San Francisco has stated that he will not allow any city personnel to cooperate in any way with federal immigration officials.

The City of New Haven, Conn., has issued illegal immigrants municipal identification cards. Supporters of the program say that the ID cards will improve public safety and give "undocumented workers" protections now afforded to legal residents.

The Maryland legislature defeated an attempt to deny illegal immigrants' state driver's licenses. Such licenses facilitate the receipt of various benefits, as well as being convenient ID. It should be noted that on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, 19 foreign "visitors" boarded four planes. Among them they had 63 valid driver's licenses.

A bill recently introduced in the New Hampshire legislature would prohibit state and local police from detaining or arresting anyone whose only offense is violating federal immigration laws. Opponents of the bill assert that it would prevent state and local law enforcement officials from pursuing suspected terrorists who are illegal immigrants.

In Pennsylvania, a federal judge held unconstitutional a local ordinance that sought to penalize renting to, or hiring, illegal immigrants.

In the years before 1861 our country underwent similar experiences.

In the 1840s, several free states adopted "personal liberty" laws, much like today's "sanctuary" laws and policies, forbidding state authorities from assisting in the enforcement of various fugitive slave acts.

The courts also became involved. When a federal court convicted Sherman Booth of violating the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the Wisconsin Supreme Court released him, holding that the act was unconstitutional. The decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court was overturned by the United States Supreme Court (Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506, 1858, Taney, C. J, opinion).

The Supreme Court (in the Dred Scott Case, 60 U. S. 393, 1856, 1857, Taney, C. J., opinion) declared the federal government could not restrict slavery in the territories; and held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

These conflicting actions contributed substantially to the climate of distrust and discord that led to the horrific violence of the American Civil War. A question arises: Can we as a nation work together to avoid a deepening gulf of distrust and discord from evolving in regard to illegal immigration?