The following column is the opinion and analysis of the writer.
We knew it was just a matter of time before Tucson became a “sanctuary city.” It is not official, but a group has gathered enough signatures, twice as many as needed, that the proposal has made the city ballot for November.
With an estimated 500 sanctuary cities nationwide, what has taken Tucson so long? It is true that our elected officials did designate Tucson as an “immigrant welcoming city” in 2012, but that designation is meaningless and changes nothing. So why did the mayor and council take this half measure instead of standing up and declaring Tucson a sanctuary city? I have an idea, but it is pure speculation (sound of chickens clucking).
So, is a sanctuary city designation more substantive than an immigrant-welcoming city? While there is no legal definition of a sanctuary city, those so designated primarily seek to limit or eliminate co-operation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
For example, in April of 2015, immigrant José Ines García Zárate was released from jail in San Francisco. Federal immigration authorities had issued a detainer requesting that Garcia Zarate be held until they could pick him up for deportation. However, under San Francisco’s sanctuary city ordinance, the city could not cooperate with federal immigration authorities unless there was a charge involving a violent felony and a history of violent felonies. So the detainer was ignored, Garcia Zarate was released on April 15, and on July 1 he discharged a pistol on a pier the projectile of which ricocheted off the concrete and killed Kate Steinle.
It has been said that wisdom can be achieved by balancing the feelings of the heart with the thoughts of the mind. How might that apply to, say, the issue of the deportation of immigrants ? Intellectually, I see the necessity of enforcing laws, lest they cease to be laws, and that deportation is an appropriate response to illegal entry — neither too harsh or too mild. My heart tells me that to deport an adult who, through no fault of his own, was illegally brought to this country as a 3-year-old and has no knowledge or experience of his “home” country is both cruel, and crazy.
Actually, there is probably a little of both head and heart in each perspective.
I noticed that arguments in favor of sanctuary city status tend to be based on feelings from the heart; while arguments against tend to be based on thoughts from the mind. I found excellent examples of both in the Arizona Daily Star.
In his article titled “Neto’s Tucson: Becoming a sanctuary city is the right thing to do,” Ernesto Portillo Jr. describes some of the consequences people suffer from continuing to live in the country illegally — an appeal to the heart. In his article titled “Steve Kozachik: Why I oppose the sanctuary initiative for Tucson”, Kozachik looks at the actual wording of the prop in question and finds myriad unintended consequences that would negatively affect public safety — an appeal to the head.
I strongly encourage Tucsonans to read and consider both pieces, then draw their own conclusions.
Meanwhile, in Needles, California, the town council has found a new application of the “sanctuary” angle. According to Fox News, “Last month, the City Council voted unanimously to declare itself a ‘2nd Amendment Sanctuary City,’ for people who feel California’s strict gun laws tread on their constitutional right to bear arms.”
Crazy? In his article, Portillo says, “It’s about civil rights. It’s about human rights.” Well, I can see that in regards to the “2nd Amendment Sanctuary City,” but shielding illegal aliens from apprehension as a civil right or human right is all heart and no head.
