The Beginning of the End of Sanctuary Cities?

New Hampshire ban resurrects the rule of law.

(Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

New Hampshire lawmakers have passed legislation that will prohibit cities from adopting policies that signal they are sanctuary destinations for illegal immigrants. Such “sanctuary cities,” which proclaim they will not prosecute illegals or cooperate with federal agents who do, are popular in New England, sometimes attracting the wrong kind of tourist. New Hampshire’s partisan victory to reclaim common sense and traditional legal principles may herald a restoration of public safety to align with the stated desires of the American public.

A Pew Research Center poll found that an eyebrow-lifting 16% of respondents say no illegals should be deported, while 32% advocated for deporting all of those living in the country illegally. About 19% said they worried that they or a family member would be deported: It appears illegals were given a Pew vote as to whether or not the immigration laws should apply to them.

Of those who favored deporting “some” illegals, 97% supported removing those who have committed violent crimes. Other nuances within this group included higher percentages of respondents who wish to deport those who entered the United States illegally in the last four years (44%) or who have committed nonviolent crimes (52%). The numbers dropped sharply for those who have a job (15%), have children born stateside (14%), came to the United States as children (9%), or are married to a US citizen (4%).

The law generally does make such distinctions – before entry. People who have a job lined up, are married to a US citizen, or have a clean criminal record have improved chances of receiving a visa to enter the country. But once here, as in most countries, the rule of law holds that deportation is the consequence of illegal entry, regardless of employment or good behavior.

Unsurprisingly, the poll showed similar graying of rules depending on how illegals are rounded up and deported. Respondents opposed arresting undocumented aliens in places of worship (65%), schools (63%), or hospitals (61%), but were more supportive of arrests made at protests or rallies (66%), in homes (63%), or at workplaces (54%). All of the polling numbers reflected more permissive immigration attitudes among Democrats versus Republicans.

Sanctuary City Crackdown

New Hampshire’s crackdown on sanctuary cities was enacted along party lines and is expected to be signed by Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte. Partisan differences over deportation views were reflected in priorities of concern between New Hampshire parties and the legislation’s fine print. Two bills await Ayotte’s signature: One prohibits sanctuary cities and authorizes the New Hampshire Attorney General to withhold funds or impose punitive actions; the other allows counties and local governments to enter into 287(g) agreements with federal officials to cooperate proactively with ICE on immigration crackdowns.

Proponents of strengthening the state’s immigration enforcement allege that sanctuary cities encourage illegal immigration into New Hampshire and hinder law enforcement investigations of criminal and terrorist activities. They assert local police should work cooperatively, not oppositionally, with federal law enforcement.

Democrats opposing both bills claimed that giving police authority to cooperate with ICE agents reduces community safety because it discourages people from reporting crimes for fear of deportation. Sen. Tara Reardon (D) stated:

“Communities like ours should not be put in the position of enabling mass deportations or detentions that go against our values and ignore our legal and social systems … We all want safe and strong communities, but that safety must be rooted in justice and compassion.”

This seems somewhat counterintuitive. Enforcing the law is not ignoring legal and social systems; it is what safeguards both. “Rooting safety in justice” would seemingly mean supporting consistent law enforcement and applying just laws. Tying the hands of law enforcement to prevent them from enforcing criminal statutes against illegal entry in the name of advancing law enforcement is a Kafkaesque argument.

The new laws seek to navigate this bizarre social justice labyrinth by chopping enforcement in half. Local law enforcement will be prohibited from investigating the citizenship status of those in their custody without an investigation into whether that person broke the law. Meanwhile, police are not required to convey undocumented people’s information when they have been a “necessary witness or victim” of a serious crime: defined to include rape, murder, domestic violence, assault, kidnapping, blackmail, and other offenses.

This muddles the rule of law, much as the Pew Research Center polling shows less-than-clear lines in public opinion about whether or how people living illegally in the country should be deported. Illegal entry into any country is generally a more serious offense than shoplifting, but in New Hampshire, it appears the police could charge someone for the latter without reporting them for the former. And what if these relative criminality principles were reversed, and those who committed an assault went uncharged so long as they were “necessary witnesses” to undocumented gang members dealing fentanyl?

Public safety and legal clarity are both further blurred by neighboring states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, that continue to make outspoken invitations to illegals to travel there for sanctuary from the federal government. Where is the rule of law when states decide to flout clear federal statutes? The federalist system relies on federal law pre-empting state or local laws that conflict. In the name of “social” (progressive) norms, shall states oppose international treaties, federal abortion laws, free speech or equal protection rights, voting laws, or federal laws protecting parents from transgender therapies for their minor children? Elevating feelings above black letter rules has consequences, visible in fentanyl deaths, rapes, murders, gang activities, and minors trafficked for sex.

Time will tell whether other jurisdictions will follow the Live Free or Die state into a return to consistent interagency law enforcement. Will neighboring Vermont and Massachusetts increase their sanctuary refuges to elevate the status of illegals above their own citizens? In the interim, New Hampshire has emerged as a sanctuary for common sense and sensible law enforcement.

(Originally published at Liberty Nation News.)