'Sanctuary cities': A double standard on immigration (Rep. Charlie Dent)

Across the United States, discussions involving the state of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration enforcement law became very impassioned. Simultaneously, many Americans expressed concern surrounding the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to prevent the law's implementation. Unfortunately, a very serious point was lost in the discourse.

Working under the direction of President Obama, the Department of Justice (DOJ) argued in its suit that Arizona’s law must be struck down because it usurps federal authority to enforce current immigration law. Ironically, while the administration spends time and resources battling Arizona's law in court, dozens of "sanctuary cities" around the country candidly refuse to cooperate with federal officials on immigration enforcement. I am stunned by the hypocrisy exhibited by this administration’s decision to file a lawsuit against a state for enforcing laws to protect its residents from the harmful impact of border crime, while casting a blind eye to cities that provide safe haven to illegal and sometimes criminal aliens. 

During a recent hearing in the Committee on Homeland Security, I questioned James Dinkins, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) official tasked with conducting homeland security investigations, about this troubling double standard. Mr. Dinkins acknowledged that the lack of cooperation by sanctuary cities can be “challenging” for federal agencies and “does come at a cost,” especially when ICE experiences difficulties building a criminal case against an alien.

Arizona’s attorney general, who has been a vocal opponent of his state’s law, even admitted at the hearing there is an “inconsistency” in the federal government filing a lawsuit against his state for attempting to identify illegal aliens in their communities, given a recent public statement by the administration indicating it has no concern with addressing the dozens of sanctuary cities across the nation.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) recently released a report that found the cost of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is $113 billion annually. In my home state of Pennsylvania alone, the cost is an astonishing $1.3 billion. Surely these costs, borne by American taxpayers, would prompt swift action by the administration to crack down on cities deliberately providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, that’s simply not the case. 

If this cost alone cannot garner the attention of the administration, certainly the dangerous activities of criminal aliens living in these communities must. Again, not the case. In 2007, the country was shocked by news that three young adults were brutally gunned down in a Newark, N.J., schoolyard by an illegal alien who was free on a $150,000 bond after being indicted on aggravated assault charges and 31 counts of child abuse.

Sadly, this assailant had an opportunity to kill these young people because the courts that set his bail were either unaware of or indifferent to the fact that he was living in this country illegally. This situation was not an aberration — at the time of the murders, the Newark Police Department had a policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” when it came to inquiring about a defendant’s immigration status. Though some may cast aside this case as a rare situation, the reality is there are cities with policies that mirror Newark’s across the country.

If this administration was serious about addressing the nation’s growing illegal immigration problem, it would be working to eliminate the alluring safe haven offered by sanctuary cities. Instead, it has prioritized a misguided lawsuit against a state taking steps to improve security for its residents in light of the federal government’s own failure to secure our southern border and enforce existing immigration laws.