Dueling Immigration Laws

Congressman Lou Barletta (R-PA) is going before the House with a bill which would eliminate federal handouts to cities which refuse to enforce immigration law. Sanctuary cities are awash with illegal immigrants and illegal immigrant crime. I've mentioned this before in posts about Sanctuary City Numero Uno--San Francisco.

It has gotten so bad that the liberals are at war with the radicals over enforcing cooperation with the feds over this issue. The radical left San Francisco Board of Supervisors re-wrote city ordinances so that only illegals convicted of violent felonies would be reported to the federal authorities. The previous rule had been that illegal immigrants, including minors, were reported to the feds upon arrest for any felony or misdemeanor. Liberal former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, unable to get enough votes to override a veto, simply ordered the police department to continue to report the miscreants to the feds and ignore the Board. It's an ongoing battle between the mayor's office and the Supes.

Barletta's proposed legislation (dubbed the "Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act," or "MASCA") would clamp down on the cities that gladly take federal funds but refuse to follow federal rules regarding reporting illegal immigrants. Barletta's move came in the wake of the Republican takeover of the House, the failure of the DREAM Act, and the inability of the Democrats and Republicans to agree on some sort of "comprehensive immigration reform" (aka "amnesty").

Barletta first came to the attention of political junkies when, as mayor of Hazelton, Pennsylvania he cracked down on illegal immigrants. Now he has announced that he is forming the Congress Immigration Reform Caucus, dedicated to striking a major blow to the ease with which illegal immigrants can hide out. He has already recruited several new Republican young turks to join him. Says Barletta: "My intention is to face illegal immigration head on." By cutting off the source of major illegal immigration enabling--federal funds.

Meanwhile, back here in La La Land, California legislators are using loopholes in the federal "must report" program which automatically checks the immigration status of arrestees. In a state which accounts for more than one-third of illegal immigrant deportations, the Democrats fear the loss of one of their major political constituencies and its major source for future (and present) Democratic voters. So they have to find a way to keep their people from being deported in even larger numbers. You see, of the 102,000 illegals deported since the program began in 2008, twenty-nine percent have been arrested for, but not convicted of criminal activity. That doesn't please the radicals-in-residence in city halls located in San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Under the program, local police are expected to report illegal immigrant arrestees to the FBI, and the current program added ICE and Homeland Security to the list of agencies to be notified, along with a copy of the arrestee's fingerprints as additional identification. But the enabling Congressional legislation did not directly address "sanctuary cities," leaving them free to make their own decisions about whom to report without the real and immediate threat of having their federal benefactor cut them off. ICE's goal of having nationwide cooperation by 2013 spurred the pro-illegal immigrant California crowd into action.

The proposed California legislation would simply allow cities to opt into or out of the national program. Illinois has pending legislation that would allow this, and Washington State already has such a law in place. This is more insidious than you might think because what it actually accomplishes is the elimination of the highly dubious pariah status of "sanctuary city" (which has no legal standing) by creating a legislated sanctuary city without the need for skirting the law and use of an appellation that has no meaning in American law.

This is a very clever ploy. By giving cities the legal right to opt into or out of the reporting program, the offending states create huge buffer zones where illegals can hide out with semi-legal confidence. Current sanctuary cities will opt out because they want to continue encouraging illegal immigration (and a future Democratic base). But many smaller towns may also opt out solely because they could cut expenditures and manpower in a state where most municipalities are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

This is not the classic states rights versus federal preemption argument. The California legislators get what they want, while at the same time not interfering with federal prerogatives. If a city ops out, it would theoretically lose its federal assistance. But that hasn't happened, ever, under the current system which coddles the amorphous "sanctuary cities." They have been hiding in plain sight, and would now have the imprimatur of the state government.

Currently, federal law does not mandate the termination of federal funds going to cities which harbor illegal immigrants. California would simply be taking advantage of that fact by legitimizing sanctuary cities. Without the mandate to cut off federal funds, Democrats and timid Republicans have simply ignored their ability to starve sanctuary cities. Thinking Congress critters who oppose illegal immigration but fear losing voters should be aware that they will actually gain votes. The voting public wrath in the current sanctuary cities will largely be turned on the local officials who arrogantly flouted the federal law when the "free goodies for everyone" crowd suddenly doesn't have those federal funds to throw around for other, more legitimate efforts. Los mas furiosos illegals would go into tizzy mode, but so far, they haven't been given the vote.

Barletta's MASCA legislation would change the rules of the game, and at the same time defeat California's legitimization of sanctuary cities. Under Barletta's proposed bill, opt-out cities would automatically have their federal funds cut off (all that would remain would be determining how much would be cut off). Whether this bill has any chance of passing, particularly given the Democratic control of the Senate and the White House remains to be seen. Nevertheless, even introducing such a bill would be an heroic move. I wish Barletta all the best.