Federalism

Sanctuary cities are one of the best examples of “For me but not for thee” thinking that all too often exists when federalism is up for discussion. For too long federalism has been a political tool used by whichever party seeks to gain control of an issue. With sanctuary cities, those who are typically of a more pro-immigrant persuasion are all too happy to allow the federal government to prevent conservative states from passing restrictions on immigrants while America’s more liberal cities ignore federal requests to turn over undocumented immigrants. This introduction, while somewhat antagonistic, is meant to highlight the key question: If Federal control is as pure as many claim it to be, how are sanctuary cities allowed to exist? We’ll examine, in detail, what precisely sanctuary cities are, why they exist, and lastly how they play into the world of federalism. First we must underst exactly what a sanctuary is and isn’t. Sanctuary cities aren’t lawless American cities in which rampant crime exists, as is sometimes the narrative. Sanctuary cities are simply cities or counties in the united states that, either by official law or unofficial policy, doesn’t comply with Federal immigration requests to turn over undocumented immigrants to Federal authorities. There is no singular or legal definition of a Sanctuary City - so they come in a large variety of shapes and forms. (Pearson 2015; BBC 2015) These, however, are not necessarily modern concepts. In fact, the Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department issued special order 40 in July of 1979 which declares that “Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of Title 8, Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Code (Illegal Entry).” (Gates 1979) San Francisco wasn’t far behind, when they passed the City and County of Refuge ordinance in 1989. The ordinance officially declared it a City and Country of Refuge (although what the means exactly is open to interpretation) and additionally prevented the use of local funds to assist in immigration investigations. (City of San Francisco 1989) Mayor Gavin Newsom updated the policy with Executive 07-01 in March of 2007, which instructed San Francisco departments to ensure they were abiding by the sanctuary clauses of the administrative code. (Newsom 2007) According to a congressional research report published in 2006, 36 cities and counties had explicit sanctuary laws - and both Alaska and Oregon have passed state wide policies. (CRS 2006) Considering the age of such a report, and the fact that many areas are sanctuary areas without formally declaring so, should lead us to believe that the current number is probably much higher. Interestingly enough, the same …show more content…
There is spirited debate over where precisely localities would derive this authority. According to traditional understanding of Federalism, such authority could only exist in the instance that state governments have such authority. This precedent was established when Justice John Dillon wrote in Cedar Rapids & Missouri River R. Co. v. Herring that “A municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers and no others: First, those granted in express words (from the state); second, those necessarily implied or necessarily incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those absolutely essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation-not simply convenient, but indispensable; and fourth, any fair doubt as to the existence of a power is resolved by the courts against the corporation.” (Cedar Rapids & Missouri River R. Co. v. Herring 1884) Thus, because localities are simply political subdivisions of the State. Additionally, when the decision was handed down in the most recent immigration federalism dispute in United States v. Arizona, the Supreme Court found that “The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law…Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation ‘so pervasive...that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it’ or where a ‘federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.’ Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand ‘as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp.