Same sad immigration song

Late last month, Edwin Ramos, 21, allegedly murdered three motorists in San Francisco in connection with a minor traffic dispute. Ramos, who is residing in the United States illegally and is purported to be a member of the Mara Salvatrucha street gang, pleaded not guilty to the offense last week at a hearing. The defense had requested the judge to issue a gag order, which was denied. The San Francisco Chronicle reported last week:

The defense sought the gag order after The Chronicle revealed that Ramos was an illegal immigrant who was found to have committed two felonies at age 17 – a gang-related assault of a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman – but was not surrendered by San Francisco juvenile justice authorities to federal officials for possible deportation.

This latest case has created a firestorm in the national media as well as the blogosphere over a two-decade city policy in San Francisco that, according to The Los Angeles Times, forbids local agencies from considering the immigration status of young offenders when they enter the law enforcement system. The so-called Sanctuary Ordinance makes it very difficult for a person’s immigration status to be ascertained and factored in to day-to-day deliberations and enforcement actions of city employees. Indeed, the ordinance goes further, actively discouraging cooperation between the City of San Francisco and the US Government by implementing punitive measures against would-be city collaborators, stating that “employees who fail to comply with the prohibitions of the ordinance shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action,” although the ordinance does not clarify what constitutes “appropriate disciplinary action.” The ordinance, however, does set up a process for enforcing the ordinance; Section 12H.4 states, “The Human Rights Commission shall review the compliance of the City and County departments, agencies, commissions and employees with the mandates of this ordinance in particular instances in which there is question of noncompliance or when a complaint alleging noncompliance has been lodged.”

For two decades, this city ordinance, like others in almost two dozen American cities, has been in effect, unchallenged by opponents of illegal immigration, but that may be about to change in the wake of the Ramos case. These ordinances’ relatively under-the-radar existence could owe to the fact that they are very cleverly worded so as not to encroach upon federal immigration policy. Immigration law is, of course, the prerogative of the federal government alone, as the City of Farmers Branch, Texas, recently discovered, much to its chagrin, when the Federal District Court in the Northern District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction in 2007-08 to stop the city from enforcing an ordinance that would have fined landlords who rented to illegal aliens and allowed local authorities to screen illegal aliens in police custody. The website of the American Immigration Law Foundation summarized the Farmers Branch case,

“The court held that the ordinance was preempted by federal law because it impermissibly attempts to regulate immigration. In addition, the court held that the court could not ‘save’ the ordinance by severing portions of the ordinance so that the ordinance would not be preempted by federal law. Finally, the court held that the ordinance violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was void for vagueness.”

The obvious question, then, is why one ordinance – the Sanctuary Ordinance – is allowed under federal law, while the other – the Farmers Branch ordinance – is disallowed?

First, it is not clear whether sanctuary ordinances – at least 22 major cities have them on the books – are allowable under federal law. This is a legal question that has been brewing since the 1980s, when the sanctuary movement first mobilized in force. Legality aside, why wouldn’t local communities cooperate with the federal government in apprehending illegal aliens, particularly those involved in criminal pursuits?

For years, police and public health officials in large cities have talked up the benefits of working with immigrant communities, and this has led many officials to believe that enforcing current immigration laws would be counterproductive. In 2006, 57 chiefs of police, under the auspices of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, warned the Bush administration that local enforcement of federal immigration laws would “undermine trust and cooperation” among immigrants.

This line of defense for the status quo has all the markings of a cop out (no pun intended). No data, to my knowledge, has ever been publicized demonstrating the validity of “don’t ask, don’t tell” immigration non-enforcement. The more likely explanation is fear of a backlash in immigrant communities. Writing in City Journal in 2004, Heather MacDonald remarked,

“The real reason cities prohibit their cops and other employees from immigration reporting and enforcement is, like nearly everything else in immigration policy, the numbers. The immigrant population has grown so large that public officials are terrified of alienating it, even at the expense of ignoring the law and tolerating violence. In 1996, a breathtaking Los Angeles Times exposé on the 18th Street Gang, which included descriptions of innocent bystanders being murdered by laughing cholos (gang members), revealed the rate of illegal-alien membership in the gang.”

It seems obvious to draw attention to the hypocrisy at the heart of sanctuary ordinances. If cities like Farmers Branch cannot pass ordinances regulating the community’s housing and rental markets because they would preempt federal law, how do sanctuary ordinances not do the same? It will be a shame if the Supreme Court must weigh in on this issue, when, truly, it is something Congress should have addressed years ago, but that seems to be where we’re headed.