President Trump recently tweeted a rather odd threat to Democrats. He tweeted, “Democrats must change the Immigration Laws FAST. If not, Sanctuary Cities must immediately ACT to take care of the Illegal Immigrants – and this includes Gang Members, Drug Dealers, Human Traffickers, and Criminals of all shapes, sizes and kinds. CHANGE THE LAWS NOW!”1Of course, this was followed by a dozen more, barely legible tweets. Ignoring for a second the threat to release “gang members, drug dealers, and human traffickers” onto American streets for the express purpose of causing violence as a lesson,2 or the xenophobic inflation of undocumented and asylum seeking migrants with dangerous criminals, it was one of those rare times Trump suggested doing something his enemies actually want him to do.
The fact that immigrant justice advocates want more immigrants in their community is almost a priori. The express purpose of Welcoming jurisdictions (what had originally been referred to as Sanctuary jurisdictions) is to provide a safer environment for immigrants to live in. We know immigrants are less willing to reach out to police or local government if they think the police are cooperating with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (I.C.E). Therefore, Welcoming Policies bar collaboration between the federal government and local authorities about immigration unless statutorily required.
So, let’s bring the immigrants & refugees into our towns & cities. For declining & deindustrialized northern cities haunted by the constant refrain of population shrinkage, Welcoming Policies offer a no-cost solution to attract immigrants, i.e., new people. Besides the direct call for more people (and the obvious moral goals of assisting desperate families), there are a slew of ancillary benefits which accrue from Welcoming Policies. Lower crime: immigrants are less likely to commit crimes when the punishment is deportation, as the data clearly shows immigrants commit far fewer crimes than citizens. More people means more consumers which drives job growth. Welcoming Jurisdictions also boast higher median household incomes, lower poverty and unemployment rates, along with less reliance on public services. Most immigrants don’t even qualify for public aid and those that do are usually required to pay it back. So, we implore you Trump, send them our way (though, like most things with Trump, it’s unlikely he’ll pay up in the end).
While many immigrant activists now largely refer to jurisdictions that refuse cooperation with I.C.E. as “Welcoming policies”, most people still recognize the term Sanctuary as the recognizable designation. The Sanctuary City movement was born in the early 1980s as a form of resistance against then-President Reagan’s immigration policies. Reagan refused for many years to grant asylum to Central Americans fleeing civil war, torture, rape, and genocide. At the same time, his administration was training & funding the right-wing militias in Central America responsible for these atrocities. Immigrant justice activists in both the U.S. and Mexico responded by creating the Sanctuary Movement. They offered to harbor “refugees”, the people the federal government are always so quick to designate as illegals. “They helped people cross the border and sheltered select individuals and families in churches, synagogues, and meetinghouses from New England to the West Coast. They lobbied politicians in Washington to stop supporting wars, and the terror they wrought, in Central America, and to change asylum policy. In 1985 and 1986, they gained national media attention as the federal government put some of the movement’s founders on trial for trafficking Central Americans across the border near Tucson, Arizona. They used this moment to push city and state governments to establish sanctuary policies.”5 This movement was hugely successful, leading to a general amnesty for undocumented immigrants and a pathway to citizenship.
.
At the same time, the xenophobic animus to migrants (specifically non-white migrants) grew. This animus was coupled with a profit motive: the increasing militarization of police forces and the border, and the rise of the private prison industry.3 There is little wonder each president since Bush 1 has deported more immigrants than any of their predecessors. The irony of a man like President Clinton and the U.S. government passing The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 is flabbergasting. Both DHS and White House officials repeatedly warned Trump the logistical nightmare of his plan to place migrants in Sanctuary Cities.4 But, did they really do this out of scheduling or budgetary concerns (DHS is already the most heavily funded department in the Federal Government)5, or was it really because the private prison industry could lose a lot of money if we didn’t have to pay them?
In the end there are more important reasons than the economic gains to wanting more immigrants in our communities. On the one hand, welcoming jurisdictions send a clear message to the Federal government and legislators who write the laws, “We do not support these mass deportation plans. We will not help you. We as a country demand pro-immigrant legislation.” It is a hiss from each individual municipality; but, it has grown into a roar as currently there are over 600 jurisdictions with Welcoming policies, and that number is only growing.
On the other hand, these policies offer the country a chance to take personal responsibility for its foreign policy of imperialism and military expansionism. “Ultimately, sanctuary and sanctuary cities help us reflect and act upon the injustices our nation perpetrates on peoples around the world, working to repair them in some small but profound ways. In this broader perspective, sanctuary cities are the places where immigrants, refugees, and their allies help one another rebuild lives and communities.”
The declining West will not be able to harken to a a more ideal time to save the crumbling of civilization. Fascism and all its promises and affects leads down one path: death. The struggle for Welcoming communities is an opportunity for local action to have global implications, and that includes against rising fascistic tendencies. What side will you be on?
This article was originally published on strangecornersofthought.com.
- https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1117218059738079233
- Is this not a stereotypically fascist response? One would think threatening to harm your own citizens with violent people should be an impeachable offense.
- The overwhelming majority of private prisons are immigrant detention centers.
- “it’s unclear whether DHS has taken any steps to implement the controversial plan. Lawyers there had previously told the White House that the idea was unfeasible and a misuse of funds.” http://time.com/5570864/trump-sanctuary-cities-proposal/
- “The U.S. government spends more on federal immigration enforcement than on all other principal federal criminal law enforcement agencies combined…” https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/us-spends-more-immigration-enforcement-fbi-dea-secret-service-all-other-federal-criminal-law
