Thread: Sanctuary cities: Model leadership to ensure safety of most vulnerable

Sanctuary cities: Model leadership to ensure safety of most vulnerable


Police geared up for trouble in a rally promoting National City as a sanctuary city in 2006.
There were no disturbances. (U-T file)

January 20, 2017

Cities and counties around the country are taking the audacious step of declaring their municipal governments sanctuaries to demonstrate solidarity with immigrants and refugees who reside within their jurisdictions. The bold declarations are necessary and responsible actions that respond to the uncertainty of increased threats by President Donald Trump about targeting immigrants and refugees for mass deportation. But really, sanctuary cities are an extension of the obligation that elected officials have of ensuring the safety and well-being of their constituents.

A call for sanctuary by municipal governments, which follows in the historic tradition of faith communities, is audacious because it builds a moral and prophetic witness against xenophobic policies that would otherwise undermine the safety of the most vulnerable in our communities.

Trump has promised to aggressively enforce immigration laws and deport millions of people, and to reinstate a database registry program targeting Arabs and Muslims of Muslim-majority countries.

The sanctuary cities — Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, Boston and dozens more — are asserting and defending the premise that everyone, regardless of immigration status, deserves dignified and fair treatment. This is a forward-looking standpoint that other cities, including within San Diego County with its 21.5 percent immigrant and refugee population, should strongly consider adopting.

To be sure, the posture is defensive, and for good reason. Elected officials are responding to Trump’s alarming rhetoric that white supremacist groups have applauded. After all, Trump began his presidential campaign by making outrageous generalizations about Mexican immigrants, calling them “people that have lots of problems … and [that] they’re bringing drugs,” “crime” and “rapists.”

Trump’s sweeping statement about Mexican immigrants piggybacked and exploited a common misconception — that the foreign-born commit more crimes than their native-born counterparts. But research on the subject matter overwhelmingly debunks that erroneous belief. The truth is that immigrants, including those with legal status and the undocumented, are far less likely to commit crimes than their U.S.-born peers. Of those who are in incarcerated, many are there due to immigration offenses.

In over 20 years of working with immigrants, I have found that they are much more susceptible to becoming victims of crimes when they distrust law enforcement agencies, or where local police openly collaborate with immigration enforcement agencies. The city of Escondido has tarnished its own reputation for promoting hostile laws affecting its immigrant population, and the immigrant community lives in a constant state of siege.

But Trump and his echo chamber of pundits and policymakers conveniently stoke populist fears by denigrating immigrants with criminal convictions, which criminalizes immigrants and migration itself. Meanwhile, heavy-handed enforcement programs under President Obama will have clocked over 2.5 million deportations, nearly 1,100 deportations per day, by the time he leaves office. This is a troubling legacy and a foundation the incoming administration will likely build upon.

During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to “cancel all federal funding to sanctuary cities.” Members of Congress are also threatening to punish those jurisdictions by blocking federal funds, in what is certain to become a fierce round in the immigration debate. From the San Diego delegation, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, has tried several times to get legislation against sanctuary cities passed, without success.

Legal experts suggest it will be an uphill battle for the Trump administration to cripple jurisdictions declaring themselves sanctuary cities, citing concerns about an overreach of powers by the federal government and a breach of 10th Amendment protections. States can dictate local powers for their law enforcement, and it is unconstitutional for the federal government to meddle in this.

Sanctuary cities are steadfastly upping the ante by committing significant money for deportation defense. Both Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., have pledged to set aside money for deportation defense funds, $10 million and $500,000 respectively. In addition, the California Legislature has introduced a package of laws that would “freeze out ICE,” declaring “the state of California will be your wall of justice” against any mass deportation plan by the Trump administration. These actions provide substantive protection and could change the conversation about what is meant by providing sanctuary, and they offer a real alternative to Congress’ failure to pass immigration reform.

Ultimately, had Congress done their work and passed just and humane immigration policy reforms, millions of hardworking people — our family members, our neighbors, our schoolmates

— would not continue to be vulnerable to aggressive immigration enforcement policies. During these uncertain times, we need courageous leadership. The sanctuary city movement provides a moral and practical foundation for protecting the most vulnerable members of our communities.

Rios is San Diego director of the American Friends Service Committee’s U.S.-Mexico Border Program.

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/sd-utbg-sanctuary-cities-support-rios-20170120-story.html

Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn

OH GOOD GRIEF. Another civil war over slave labor? Honestly? Oh, wake the hell up.