Sanctuary Cities: Testing the Balance

Sanctuary Cities: Testing the Balance.  There is a common theme in the administration of government that runs through all departments and agencies.  When a law, regulation, or procedure flows from the top echelon of government downward towards the people who execute the action, it will inevitably be modified or adjusted to reflect the very real concerns of the ultimate site of impact.  This is as it should be, because it is oftentimes clear in the administration of government that one size does not fit all and local concerns should be factored into the application of the rules.  However, it is typically understood that while the changes may occur as the downward flow commences, the changes shall be more restrictive, but not less restrictive.  This a fundamental premise that recognizes that the supreme lawmakers in our culture are those who reside in Congress, elected by the people.  When a law is passed by Congress and signed by the President, it is subject to the review of the Judiciary; and when it passes that muster, it is considered the will of the people…ALL of the people.  The occasional allowance by government to allow more localized authorities to make the law even more restrictive is recognition that we are a nation of individual states and localities where each has their own set of unique challenges and concerns.  It is also recognition that even though these individual states and localities have their own set of problems, we are nonetheless a nation united and there must be one set of universal, federal laws that supersede all others in order to preserve the union.   The federal government should not attempt to micro-manage the lives of people; at the same time, local states and municipalities must respect the right of the federal government to promulgate restrictive laws that protect the citizenry.

To me, this is the issue at hand when dealing with the sanctuary city question.  Certain parts of the country must deal more directly and intimately with immigration than others based simply on their physical location.  Other areas have, for various reasons, become magnets or settling regions for certain groups of immigrants.  These are natural occurrences that should be expected and must be addressed in any immigration discussion.  However, the ability of an individual state or locality to thumb its nose at federal law in pursuit of its own interests or beliefs is a luxury that cannot be afforded and must be addressed with a high degree of immediacy and diligence.  If federal law can be countered by localized law, does that not endanger the very fiber that holds our diverse nation of states and peoples together? 

States and municipalities clearly need the liberty to fashion their culture and society to suit the citizens who choose to reside there.  This is the quality that helps to make our country great and makes us stronger as a nation.  Through this method, American citizens are presented with options in choosing how they live their everyday lives and how they might live in sync with their beliefs and desires.  But people in San Francisco, California do not need to be telling people in Lexington, Kentucky how they should be living their lives.  Nor should the legal actions taken by Chicago, Illinois, in an effort to reflect the personal philosophies of their citizens and leaders, endanger the health and well-being of Americans who live outside the Chicago city limits but certainly within the same geographical region.  Individual states and municipalities do not exist in a vacuum and do not enjoy the privilege of an independent nation.  At some point in the process of balancing national interests with local concerns, a line must be drawn ceding ultimate authority to the greater entity.

Within the framework of federal immigration law, states and municipalities can and should fashion immigrant policies that reflect the views of those that live and work there.  They can use their own resources, their own tax revenues, to pursue additional services and outreach to immigrants that go above and beyond those offered by the federal government.  For instance, Chicago could set up municipal offices that can assist immigrants with necessary documentation and other types of support and assistance.  If that is what Chicago wants, let the people of Chicago pay for that.  However, when they choose to disregard established federal laws; they must adjust their actions to that area reserved to them for localized input.  There is much that Chicago can do to make itself a desirable place for immigrants, both legal and illegal, to gravitate towards.  This range of options is broad and can be creative to the point of reflecting Chicago’s unique set of beliefs and principles.  But Chicago should not, and does not, have the right to ignore and supersede federal laws that were put on the book to protect this nation and all of the people that live in it.