Sanctuary Cities and States

According to Britannica, there are three arguments for being a sanctuary city:

1.      Undocumented people are less likely to report crimes and to cooperate with police investigations because they fear being deported.  My comments:

a.      I agree with the statement, but not with the conclusion.  People who use drugs are less likely to report a crime or cooperate with an investigation.  Does that mean we shouldn’t enforce drug laws?

b.      The same logic applies to enforcement of parking tickets, child support payments, etc.  It is a slippery slope if you stop enforcing the law.

c.      In normal times, people who have been here a long time and haven’t broken laws are not deported. (Obviously, this argument applies only in “normal” times.  See 3a.)

2.      Sanctuary cities are upholding the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.  My comments:

a.      The 10^th amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

b.      Nothing in the 10^th amendment requires states or cities to be sanctuary cities.  Saying the states are “upholding” the Tenth Amendment is clearly misleading.  That leaves room for an interpretation that the 10^th Amendment protects states that want to be sanctuary states but read on.

c.      Courts have ruled that the Federal government is responsible for protecting our borders.  (Strangely, to me, the courts have ruled that if the Federal government fails to protect a state’s border, there is nothing a state can do about it on its own.)  They have also ruled that the Federal government is responsible for immigration.

d.      The 10^th amendment relates only to powers not delegated to the Federal government.  As immigration control is delegated to the Federal government, it does not come under the 10^th Amendment.

e.      U.S. Code, Title 8, § 1373 (1996) states “Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”  One of the items listed is “Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity.”

                                          i.     At least two Federal district courts have found it unconstitutional.

                                         ii.     But the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution) says the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land; state laws cannot nullify them.

f.       The Federal E-Verify law requires all employers to verify the identity and employment eligibility of all new employees (including U.S. citizens) within three days of hire.  This means that it is Illegal under Federal law for an illegal immigrant to be hired.

                                          i.     But California’s Fast Food Council bars fast-food employers from inquiring into immigration status of employees and applicants.    (The Wall Street Journal | Pg A011, 14 June 2025)

                                         ii.     California’s AB 450 requires employers to notify workers of ICE enforcement and bars them from verifying immigration status without state approval, with fines up to $25,000 for each violation.  (The Wall Street Journal | Page A011, 14 June 2025).

                                        iii.     The above California laws seem to violate the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2, U.S. Constitution) which says the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties are the supreme law of the land; state laws cannot nullify them.

3.      Sanctuary cities protect undocumented immigrants from unjust federal immigration laws

a.      In extreme circumstances, I support this argument.  Extreme circumstances may exist now.

b.      However, extreme circumstances have not existed in general when states and cities have adopted “sanctuary” status.

c.      Furthermore, sanctuary efforts should be selective, aimed at protecting people from unjust deportation.  The biggest issue is whether states or cities that release an illegal alien from prison/jail should cooperate with Federal authorities to turn that released convict over to ICE.  Deporting an illegal alien who committed a crime is not unjust federal law.  So, this third point cannot apply to the key bone of contention.

d.      Proclaiming sanctuary status when immigration enforcement was not unjust removes a key lever of expression if/when such enforcement becomes unjust.  If many jurisdictions passed sanctuary laws in response to unjust enforcement, it would be a strong message.  That message cannot be conveyed if the jurisdictions already have sanctuary laws.

There is another issue not mentioned by Britannica.  States benefit from illegal immigration in several ways:

1. Illegal immigrants are sources of inexpensive labor and will do jobs not filled by citizens.
2. Illegal immigrants count toward Congressional representation, rewarding more political power to states that encourage illegal immigration.
3. Federal education funds are granted based on the number of students, including illegal aliens.
4. States may profit by allowing illegal aliens to qualify for Medicaid expansion.  The Federal government pays 90% of the cost; the states charge the Medicaid providers a tax to fund the state’s 10% share; and the state benefits from economic growth and higher state income taxes.
5. There are probably other such advantages.  For example, states and cities seek Federal grants to deal with immigration issues.

6.      To the degree that such advantages influence politicians, sanctuary laws might not be based on “immigrant rights” idealism.

       Now that our borders are more secure, I believe we should create paths to citizenship for immigrants who have been here a long time, contributing positively to our society.  Doing so, would reduce concern about deportations.