Cal Thomas: Congress & consequences of sanctuary cities |
Featured Commentary

Cal Thomas: Congress & consequences of sanctuary cities

Cal Thomas
Central American migrants wait for food in El Paso, Texas, March 27.

In the category of Mad magazine’s “scenes we’d like to see” comes President Trump’s threat to transport migrants to cities and states that have declared themselves sanctuaries. Apparently he thinks such a move would force Democrats in Congress who represent these places to vote to fund the wall along our southern border.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the president’s threat “unworthy of the presidency.” In fact, it is Congress that has been unworthy for a long time. Here is a body that passes laws everyone else must obey, but in too many cases is exempt from adhering to some of them.

In 1995, the House and Senate passed the Congressional Accountability Act, which finally applied many civil rights, labor and workplace safety statutes to the legislative branch, yet two very important laws, the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act and the Occupational Safety and Health Act, do not apply to Congress. There are others.

Wealthy members of Congress might take offense should immigrants move into their neighborhoods. They don’t seem to care about the harm caused to ranchers and other property owners in states along the southern border.

Legal experts say it would be illegal under current law to move people to sanctuary cities and states. This crosses the border of ridiculousness. Some governors and mayors are protecting those who enter the country illegally from the law. If they were protecting other lawbreakers — drug dealers, or murderers, for example (which the president argues they are) — the law would consider them accessories after the fact and they would face prosecution and prison time. But because politicians refuse to update laws that are full of loopholes the current problem is their doing.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of sanctuary cities, here is a short lesson. Sanctuary cities were established in Old Testament law (Numbers 35:11) to protect someone who had killed another person by accident and without malice aforethought from “the avenger of blood,” who might be a close relative of the dead person. Under the priestly code, the accused was removed from the city and put on trial. If he was found innocent of murder, he was returned under guard to the sanctuary city in which he had claimed asylum. He enjoyed protection until the Jewish high priest died, at which point he was free to leave the city without fear of harm.

The Mishnah, the oral law given alongside the written Torah, states that the high priest’s mother (not the government) would traditionally supply clothing and food to those claiming asylum in the cities of refuge, so that relatives of the dead person would not wish for the death of her son because he harbored the accused. The Talmud argues that the natural death of the high priest was a type of atonement because he was considered pious. Maimonides argued that the death of the high priest was an event so upsetting to the Israelites that they dropped all thoughts of vengeance.

Today’s sanctuary cities and states have nothing to do with their original intent or outcome. Those living in this country without legal permission have broken the law, but are simultaneously protected by the law. Does this make sense? Name other laws American citizens could break and not be held accountable. Try breaking the tax laws and see where that gets you.

One of the president’s problems has been his lack of focus. He throws proposals against a congressional wall to see if any will stick. He should stick with one and bring public opinion with him. The ultimate solution lies with a do-nothing Congress and only it can solve the problem. For political reasons, members of both parties refuse to do so.

Those who support sanctuary cities ought to experience the consequences of that support in their own front and backyards.

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.