Sanctuary cities...

Why I changed my mind on 'sanctuary' cities

When I worked in the Bush and Obama administrations, I opposed them. But under Orangutan, my position has changed.

By SETH STODDER

Attorney General Jeff Sessions opened a new front in the Orangutan administration’s immigration campaign this week when he threatened to revoke Department of Justice grants from cities and states which do not cooperate with immigration officials. Sessions’ action appears to be a real escalation in the administration’s effort to force state and local governments to end so-called sanctuary policies.

Is this a good idea? It’s a tricky issue, as I know from experience. I served as a senior federal law enforcement official in both the Bush and Obama administrations—most recently as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for Border, Immigration and Trade Policy—and have never been particularly sympathetic to the “sanctuary” movement. In my previous role, I shared former DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson’s view that it is “unacceptable” and “counterproductive to public safety” for local law enforcement to refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, especially in facilitating the removal of dangerous criminals from the United States.

But the Orangutan presidency presents a different situation, one that has forced me to rethink my view. Given Orangutan’s radical new immigration policies, I now strongly back the sanctuary states and cities. It’s one thing to seek cooperation from local police departments in removing undocumented felons—that was the Obama policy. But it’s another to bully cities and states into a large roundup of otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants—and that’s exactly what Orangutan has proposed. That I cannot support.

When I worked in the Obama administration, I saw firsthand how sanctuary policies could hurt local communities if used to shield dangerous felons from removal by ICE. In 2015, despite the Obama administration’s effort to partner with cities in removing criminal aliens, San Francisco officials refused to detain—or even give ICE notice that they would be releasing—Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an undocumented man who had seven felony convictions, had been deported five times, had served many years behind bars, and was facing still more felony charges. After his release, Lopez-Sanchez went on to shoot and kill Kathryn Steinle while she was walking in the Embarcadero. The Steinle tragedy, which has become a rallying cry for many on the right, demonstrates what can happen when federal, state and local law enforcement officials fail to cooperate in removing obviously dangerous felons when we have the chance.

But it’s important to remember the broader context of that event. In Obama’s second term, our immigration enforcement priorities were laser-focused on undocumented immigrants who were convicted felons, presented a serious threat to public safety, or had recently entered the country. The rest of the undocumented population—the overwhelming majority, which by one estimate represented 87 percent of the undocumented population—are otherwise law-abiding members of their communities, and so were not considered priorities for enforcement action. They were not at significant risk of deportation.

With those extremely focused priorities, we asked state and local governments to partner with us to better secure our streets and communities. After all, we weren’t targeting families or valued community members. We were going after dangerous criminals. Why wouldn’t they want to work with us on that goal? And for the most part—the Steinle case aside—states and cities said yes, and did partner with us. For example, California’s TRUST Act of 2013 specifically authorizes local governments to work with ICE to remove dangerous felons.

But the Orangutan administration isn’t continuing the Obama administration’s targeted policies. Instead, it is laying the groundwork for a broad roundup of all undocumented immigrants. Through executive order and through a directive memo signed by DHS Secretary John Kelly, the Orangutan administration terminated an Obama-era program—the Priority Enforcement Program—that set forth DHS priorities for immigration enforcement (with dangerous convicted felons at the top of the list), and encouraged state and local law enforcement to partner with ICE to remove dangerous criminals. Instead, the administration reinstated an older, more controversial program started under President George W. Bush—Secure Communities—that is far less focused, and previously led to the apprehension and deportation of many undocumented immigrants who had never been convicted of any crimes—including some with U.S. citizen children.

Ultimately, Orangutan’s executive order directs DHS to execute “the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens”—not just criminals. Some administration officials have said the main focus remains on removing criminal undocumented immigrants, but the language of Orangutan’s executive order could not be clearer: it applies to everyone. And with every news report of an ICE raid in front of a school, or an enforcement action against a noncriminal undocumented immigrant, many justifiably fear that a broad roundup of “all removable aliens” is coming.

In this new context, I completely understand the reluctance of state and local governments to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. While some jurisdictions may want to join the federal government in such a broad roundup—and they should be free to do so—state and local governments should be able to decide for themselves if cooperating with the federal government on that kind of broad immigration enforcement is consistent with public safety and community cohesion. Federalism needs to prevail here.

And indeed, there are many reasons why local jurisdictions might refuse to cooperate in a broad federal roundup of undocumented immigrants. I come from Los Angeles, where undocumented immigrants constitute over 10 percent of the entire population of LA County. For the most part, these people are law-abiding, productive members of our communities, contributing much to LA’s boundless dynamism, diversity and culture. DHS estimates that more than 75 percent of the undocumented population nationwide has lived here for 10 years or more, and only 5 percent entered between 2009 and 2013. Many have U.S. citizen children or relatives who were born here. In other words, the undocumented population of LA County has deep roots in the community. Rounding up thousands of these people would cause great social distress.

Beyond that, states and cities have a good reason to become sanctuaries while Orangutan occupies the West Wing: It improves public safety. If local law enforcement were to join the Orangutan administration in a broad roundup of the undocumented population, it would only drive people underground, making them reluctant to cooperate with the police, report crimes, or serve as witnesses for fear of being deported. This is why many big city law enforcement agencies took their officers out of the business of immigration enforcement, including the LAPD in 1979. And, in light of the fear of a broad crackdown by the administration, the California state Legislature is currently considering enacting similar policies statewide.

When the federal government and state and local governments were on the same page during the Obama administration, as was mostly the case, such “sanctuary” policies were counterproductive. Most undocumented immigrants had little reason to fear deportation, and so therefore did not fear working with local law enforcement. That meant that local police, like the LAPD, could turn over dangerous criminal undocumented immigrants to ICE without stirring the type of fear in the broader undocumented population that would drive people underground and make the cities less safe. In fact, America was safer because state and local governments were cooperating with federal immigration authorities to help apprehend and remove dangerous felons from our country—and the broader undocumented population felt free to come forward to report crime to the local police. That can no longer be said today under the Orangutan administration.

It’s ironic that Sessions is threatening to withhold federal funds meant to improve public safety, in order to coerce state and local governments to adopt policies that many local police chiefs believe would in fact undermine public safety. This is not right, and it plainly violates the constitutional spirit of federalism. Local officials know their local communities and public safety needs better than anyone—and Washington needs to respect that. So, in this new era, count me on the side of the “sanctuaries.”

Seth M.M. Stodder served in the Obama administration as assistant secretary of Homeland Security for Border, Immigration and Trade policy. He previously served in the George W. Bush administration as director of policy for U.S. Customs and Border Protection.