Sanctuary City Bill Is No Fix To Immigration Challenges

Only two years after passing a bipartisan bill that would have overhauled our immigration system—only to watch it die on the vine in the House without ever getting a vote—the Senate is preparing to vote on immigration legislation once again. But the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act introduced by Senator Vitter (R-LA) is a much different kind of immigration bill. Instead of fixing the problem, it would pass the buck and blame cities and jurisdictions that are doing the best they can to deal with the flawed system Congress has failed to reform. And there’s no doubt it is motivated more by a desire to score political points than to address the real issues at stake, as the quandary of cities refusing to comply with federal immigration authorities is less common today than it was just a year ago—and even if that weren’t the case, this bill wouldn’t fix it.

It is important to note that the reason a “sanctuary city” would not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement in the first place is because Congress failed to pass the comprehensive immigration reform package that would have fixed the root issue. Twice in the last decade we’ve had bipartisan legislation come to a vote, and had it passed in either 2013 or 2007, jurisdictions would not be compelled to find workarounds to a still-failing immigration system. The House and the Senate shouldn’t punish cities for doing their best to serve and protect their communities in difficult circumstances that were created and prolonged by Congress itself.

What’s more, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act is a solution in search of a problem. Though no one knows exactly how many “sanctuary cities” exist—since there is no technical definition of the term—the number of jurisdictions refusing to comply with federal enforcement is in fact falling thanks to recent actions by President Obama. Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has testified that, under the controversial Secure Communities Program, “something like 300 jurisdictions had enacted or imposed limitations on their law enforcement’s ability to cooperate with our immigration enforcement personnel.” But last fall, President Obama replaced that flawed program with the Priority Enforcement Program—and now, of the 49 biggest jurisdictions, only 5 have indicated they won’t cooperate in this joint local-federal effort. That’s a huge step forward toward ensuring that federal officials have the partnerships they need on the ground. Why would we now make an about-face and change that successful policy, especially since there’s no evidence the new one would be more effective in gaining local cooperation?

Finally, even if compliance with federal immigration enforcement officials wasn’t increasing, the Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act would be the wrong way to address it. This legislation would threaten “sanctuary cities” by denying them eligibility for Community Development Block Grants, among other sources of federal funding. But these grants have nothing to do with law enforcement or immigration—they fund efforts to improve housing, economic development, and quality of life for low- and moderate-income Americans. Instead of punishing those actually responsible for the decision to cooperate or fail to cooperate with federal immigration officials, this bill would punish those with the least political power over that or any other decision—the poor. Americans should be asking their Senators how exactly that would improve immigration enforcement.

The fact of the matter is that there is no real definition of a “sanctuary city,” as it is more political ploy than practical problem. To the extent we did have a problem with local jurisdictions refusing to work with federal immigration officials, the Obama Administration has remedied it. That’s yet another reason that the Senate should focus on the real issue at hand—fixing our immigration system—not divert attention from their failure to do so by focusing on legislation that may please one political party’s base but achieve nothing else.