Sanctuary

Some people just don’t get it. Liberal columnist and proponent of illegal immigration, Ruben Navarrette Jr. is certainly one of them. On July 31, 2007, CNN.com ran Navarrette’s article, entitled “Illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound.”[i] In it, Navarrette conveniently selects when and where federal laws should apply to cities, states, and illegal immigration.Navarrette admonishes the small town of Hazleton, Pennsylvania for its attempts to do what the US government refuses to do-protect their town from illegal immigration. In 2006, the Hazleton town council passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act. The Act prohibited landlords from renting to illegal immigrants or face a fine of $1000 per person. The Act also made it a crime to employ illegal immigrants, with employers facing a loss of permits for violations. A separate, but connected act also made English the official language of Hazleton. Many cities across America followed Hazleton’s lead, and passed similar ordinances to protect their cities from the illegal immigrant invasion, including San Bernardino, California and Avon Park, Florida.

Unfortunately, a federal judge struck down Hazleton’s controversial new law as unconstitutional, and for its preemption of federal laws. Mr. Navarrette is sure to point out this fact in his article, stating “the Founding Fathers were on the right track in prohibiting that sort of thing by conceiving of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that a state or locality may not pass laws that interfere with federal law.”

Ironically, Navarrette seems to conveniently forget about federal laws overriding city ordinances on the subject of sanctuary cities and their sanctuary policies. Sanctuary cities are cities that have declared themselves as sanctuary for illegal immigrants. To make matters worse, there are entire states giving themselves the designation of “sanctuary states,” including California, Maine, and Oregon. These cities and states have passed ordinances that are referred to as “sanctuary policies.”

Sanctuary policies begin with standing orders that prohibit law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status without criminal cause. This goes directly against the guidelines suggested by the 9/11 Commission, which calls for state and local officials to aid federal officials in identifying terrorists and other individuals that are not authorized to be in this country. This particular sanctuary policy has led directly to the sexual molestation of a minor, several counts of assault, and the execution of three college students in Newark, New Jersey by an illegal immigrant from Peru. Jose Carranza was arrested twice, and allowed bail both times, before he killed the three young students. The city of Newark as well as the state of New Jersey have marked themselves as areas of sanctuary for illegal aliens.

Recommendations from respected commissions may not be federal law, but the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 is. Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part VIII of this federal law specifically states:

Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible under section 1182 (a)(2) (insofar as an alien inadmissible under such section has been convicted of an aggravated felony) or 1182(a)(3) (other than subparagraph (E) thereof) of this title to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.[ii]

Another sections of this law states:

Any person who-knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation; encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law…[iii]

And still another states:

It is unlawful for a person or other entity-to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or to hire for employment in the United States an individual without complying with the requirements of subsection (b) of this section
…
It is unlawful for a person or other entity, after hiring an alien for employment in accordance with paragraph (1), to continue to employ the alien in the United States knowing the alien is (or has become) an unauthorized alien with respect to such employment.[iv]

I don’t know about anyone else, but that all seems pretty clear to me. Sanctuary for illegal immigrants violates several federal laws that have been in the books since the 1950’s-plain and simple. While the Immigration Act of 1990 revised many of the INA laws, none of these I have listed are among them.

Ruben Navarrette and sanctuary areas are content to ignore these federal laws because they are designed to deter illegal immigration, rather than encourage it. This form of selective memory and hypocrisy is an all-too-common occurrence in both cases. It is sad that towns like Hazleton, Pennsylvania and opponents of illegal immigration are the only ones being reminded of federal laws.