Sanctuary Policies Mean Justice Is Political
By Robert Klein Engler (05/27/05)
In light of recent events, especially the alleged murder of a police officer in Denver by an illegal immigrant, the sanctuary city policy is being debated again. This policy which prevents local police from asking about a person's immigration status is in place in many cities. Houston, Seattle, San Francisco, Portland, Long Beach, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago are all sanctuary cities.
In Chicago there are layers of law enforcement that compound the implementation of any coherent immigration policy. Although the state of Illinois and the county of Cook have jurisdiction in Chicago, they usually stay out of one another's way. The Illinois state troopers I talked to take the public position that illegal immigration is a federal problem and the federal government should enforce immigration laws. They have nothing to say about Chicago's sanctuary policy.
This attitude prevails in many cities, even though Jerry Seper writing in "The Washington Times," claims that "assistant Secretary Michael J. Garcia, who heads ICE, the investigative arm of Homeland Security, has promised a vigorous enforcement effort for criminal aliens now in the country, including a $10 million effort to fund eight new teams of agents to apprehend and deport aliens convicted of crimes in the United States." Many in the Illinois law enforcement community seem to know little about this $10 million and the promise of "vigorous enforcement."
Selective Law Enforcement
The argument politicians make for the sanctuary city policy is rather simple: If you don't enforce some laws then you will be better able to enforce other laws. In short, this is selective law enforcement that often compromises the integrity of police officers.
Put another way, those who support sanctuary policies are usually politicians who use the police for their political ends. These politicians claim that public health concerns or efficient law enforcement requires good community relations with immigrant communities. A sanctuary policy supposedly furthers these good community relations.
Those who support sanctuary policies claim that if a woman who is in the U. S. illegally has been raped, she is more likely to go to the police about her attacker if she does not have to worry about being deported. Furthermore, other members of her community will be more inclined to testify to the police if they did not have to worry about their immigrations status.
Of course, these politicians never question the criminal status of illegal immigrants in the first place. They get around that thorny point by referring to immigration criminals as "undocumented workers." Nor do these politicians consider how much better law enforcement would be if we did not have a community of immigration criminals in the first place.
Sanctuary policies put the police in an awkward position. They must overlook one crime in order to prosecute another. Sanctuary policies are in short a type of selective law enforcement that makes the life of a police officer difficult. Should the Chicago police, for example, not enforce the federal laws against counterfeiting?
In Chicago the sanctuary city policy originates from an executive order by mayor Richard M. Daley. This executive orders stands today, even though section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act says the following: "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."
According to congressman Tom Tancredo from Colorado, executive orders like the one issued by Chicago's mayor Daley are illegal. Tancredo says, "In 1996, Congress passed a law to prevent cities from passing such ordinances or policies. It doesn't seem to matter. Sanctuary cities have a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy when it comes to illegals. Police are barred from even asking suspects about their immigration status, and from reporting them to immigration authorities."
To Serve and Protect
Most people realize that police officers need some discretion when it comes to law enforcement. However, what many police officers do not like is to be directed to not enforce certain laws. Furthermore, there is no evidence yet that crime is diminished or criminals prosecuted more effectively by having a sanctuary policy in place. Even if you wanted to know how effective a sanctuary policy may be or how many crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in Chicago, you cannot get that data. When you ask for it, you are told either that it is not available or that because of a sanctuary policy, such data are not kept.
Some politicians claim sanctuary policies make police work easier. In fact, they do just the opposite. Many police officers will tell you that given a chance. Sanctuary policies actually attract more criminals and make more crime. Violent gangs like MS 13 benefit by sanctuary policies. Sanctuary policies may make it easier for self-serving politicians to get votes, but they hardly help the police catch criminals.
According to Peggy O'Hare of the "Houston Chronicle," more than a few police officers do not agree with the sanctuary policy. Houston police officer John Nickell is one of them. While he testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee Nickell said, "When we shackle law enforcement officers in such a manner—instead of protecting U. S. citizens and people who are here legally—the danger to society greatly increases by allowing potential violent criminals to freely roam our cities."
Enforce Immigration Laws
City officials who want sanctuary policies prefer politics to justice. This is in sharp contrast to what most Americans want. Steve Brown and Chris Coon of "FrontPageMagazine.com" claim that "Public opinion stands in diametric opposition to sanctuary policies. A recent Roper survey showed 88% of Americans agree that law enforcement should report any illegal aliens to immigration officials."
Even though it is a felony to enter the U. S. after being deported, few politicians seem interested in apprehending even these felons. Manhattan Institute fellow Heather MacDonald reports that in Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide are for illegal aliens and as of January 2004, there were more than 1,200 such warrants. In spite of this, a sanctuary policy remains in effect in Los Angeles.
Would it be so difficult to enforce immigration laws on the local level? Just do the math and you will see it is not as difficult as some city officials claim. According to figures for 2002 from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and from U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), more than 375,000 known illegal aliens have been ordered deported, but have disappeared pending immigration hearings. In 2005 this number may be even higher.
The United States total land area is 3,537,441 square miles. Given the 375,000 known illegals on the lose, that's more than 9 immigration criminals per square mile of U. S. territory. How hard is it to find these people, especially because they are not equally distributed throughout the country? Most likely they are concentrated in our big cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.
Politics Instead of Justice
There are many reasons why ordinary U. S. citizens want to stop illegal immigration. Population growth and lack of immigrant assimilation are just a few. Underlying these reasons, however, is a more fundamental one: illegal immigration goes against our sense of justice and fair play.
It's not the American way to sneak into our country. Most Americans believe that if you want to become a U. S. citizen or work here, then you have to gain that citizenship or job fairly. After that, you must assimilate into the nation's customs and values.
It's hard to imagine how sanctuary policies serve anyone except those who make the policies. They certainly are not fair and they do not serve the police nor do they serve hardworking citizens. The longer Mayor Daley continues his sanctuary policy for illegal immigrants, the more he erodes the trust of good citizens who believe in playing fair.
It is easy to understand why some politicians and businessmen would not be troubled by illegal immigration. If your aim is profits or votes, then a sanctuary policy makes sense. Such policies may pay off in the short term. Unfortunately, sanctuary policies also increase frustration among citizens who are looking for a place to focus their disappointments. If you are a citizen who has followed the rules all your life and then you see illegal immigrants given special consideration, it can be irksome.
Because our immigration laws are not fairly enforced, illegal immigration and sanctuary policies have now become an adhesive issue in American politics. Other political issues, some not related, will begin to stick to the immigration issue as time passes. Sooner or later even local Chicago politicians will be swept up by this wind from the south and stuck with the problem of illegal immigration.
When you must select between English and Spanish every time you call the phone company, go to the bank or buy milk, many Americans grow frustrated with illegal immigrants and policies that protect them. If you had to change your daughter's school because of immigration problems, are 50 years old and lost your job because of downsizing, or had your pension reduced because the company where you worked for so many years is now in bankruptcy, your frustration grows even more.
Sanctuary policies for illegal immigrants do not realize social justice for American citizens or for immigrants. Sanctuary policies that are supposed to minimize community unrest, will eventually unleash even more unrest. Bending immigration laws is not the answer to our immigration problem. It would be better to straighten them. As long as a sanctuary policy remains in Chicago, justice is not blind, but is gravely political, instead.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Robert Klein Engler
