Sanctuary cities have been a divisive, political and social issue for a long time. They have been at the heart of the immigration debate. They refer to cities and municipalities within states that have intentionally chosen not to enact federal laws on immigration (Salvi, 2016). Sanctuary policies require municipal and city employees as well as police not to inquire the immigration status of individuals. In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in a bid to force cities and local governments to cooperate with federal agencies concerning reporting the immigration status of aliens as well as other issues that might arise touching on immigrants.
Sanctuary policies do not differentiate illegal from legal immigrants, thus allowing them to benefit from state-funded programs and services. Texas is one of the states with the most sanctuary cities in the nation including Dallas, Austin, and Katy. Faced with pressure from fellow Republicans in the Congress, Texas' governor Gregory Abbott was forced to threaten withholding funding to cities that effect sanctuary policies (Robbins, 2015). It was against the backdrop of counties and cities withholding federal extension requests for detained illegal immigrants.
The issue of sanctuary cities exposes the underlying debate focused on federalism versus nationalism. Pro-federalists argue that the Congress, which is the symbol of nationalist sentiment, is not alive to realities on the ground (Gerken, 2014). In embracing nationalism, the power of the States has continually been suppressed. Sanctuary policies mirror the clamor for decentralization. Arguments for immigration federalism show that contrary to nationalism proponents that decentralization breeds a divisive society, states play a crucial role in integrating immigrants. The decentralization in itself allows racial minorities, who often make up the majority of the targeted immigrants under sanctuary policies, to have protection from discrimination (Gerken, 1637). It provides an alternative rather than depend on the federal government or the judicial system to address their issues.
The interests of the federal government are usually protected by the courts in which most of the affected often turn for redress including state governments themselves. Furthermore, these interests do not often match those of the individuals in the respective states, counties, cities and local municipalities. An example is given of the Texas state government, which enacted the patients' bill of rights (while under George W. Bush). That led to the joining of hands by citizens to force down the exaggerated prices of prescription drugs. The pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the overpriced prescription drugs were protected by the Federal Prescription Drug Benefit law which was clearly against the interests of the patients not just in Texas but across the whole nation.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the tipping of political power in favor of the federal government compared to the state polity, state governments have argued of the converging interests between nationalism decentralization. It is perhaps an attempt to diffuse the apparent conflict between the two spheres of power. In the case of U.S v. Morrison, a majority of the states agreed that the Commerce Clause of the U.S Constitution can be triggered in the event of sexual assault cases as it has the effect of interrupting interstate commerce through lost working hours as well as increased healthcare costs, which prevent the allocation to other sectors that may promote interstate commerce (Kendall, 2004).
Whether justified or not, the Supreme Court of the United States overruled the states and held that incidents of sexual assault do not undermine interstate commerce and as such do not trigger the commerce clause. It was despite the fact that thirty-six had joined hands in a bid to influence the court's determination.
Such divergent views by the courts often in support of the federal government merely serve to illustrate growing efforts whether by design or default to shift more power towards the federal government to the disadvantage of decentralization (Kendall, 2004).
Based on these arguments, it is evident that the supremacy battles between the state polity and the federal polity exist, and the courts have over time been used in litigating against the interests of state governments, cities, and local municipals which in the long run have the effect of undermining decentralization. It is against this backdrop that the issue of sanctuary cities reflects the clamor for more powers to be devolved to the citizens.
The argument often held against sanctuary cities especially in Texas is that they create a haven for illegal immigrants that commit crimes. Such cities and municipalities argue that they are essential in ensuring the rights of all individuals including the immigrants. It is, however, clear that the argument on the propagation of crimes by illegal immigrants is a veiled attempt to forcefully enforce federal laws. It is especially the case given that a majority of the incidents of crime in the sanctuary cities of Texas are in fact committed by citizens and legal immigrants rather than illegal immigrants (Brownstein, 2007).
In conclusion, the debate on either federalism or nationalism shows that the two do not have to conflict but are merely a means to an end. It is possible for both nationalism and decentralization to co-exist there is, therefore, need to seek a balance between the two if issues such as those brought about by the sanctuary cities are to be avoided.
References
Brownstein, Ron (August 22, 2007). "Sanctuary' as battleground." Los Angeles Times. Retrieved Mar 12, 2016
Gerken, Heather. (2014) "Federalism as the New Nationalism: An Overview" Yale law journal 123 (6): 1626-2323.
Hudson, Audrey (September 6, 2007). "Chertoff warns meddling ‘sanctuary cities.’" The Washington Times. Retrieved Mar 12, 2016
Kendall, Douglas (2004). Redefining Federalism: Listening to the States in Shaping “Our Federalism.” Washington, D.C: Environmental Law Institute
Robbins, Seth. (2015) “Texas governor says he'll deny 'sanctuary cities' some funds” ap.org accessed [12 Mar, 2016], http://bigstory.ap.org/article/89c389f54eca4701aa8ce2d8815ccac5/texas-governor-says- hell-deny-sanctuary-cities-some-funds
Salvi, Steve. (2016)" What are Sanctuary Cities?." OJJPAC.org 12 Mar. 2016. http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp
Zezima, Katie. (December 13, 2006) “ Massachusetts Set for Its Officers to Enforce Immigration Law.” The New York Times. Retrieved Mar 12, 2016
