Editor’s Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by the Collegian or editorial board.
I remember Sept. 6, 2017, like it was yesterday. The day before, the Trump administration had announced the cancellation of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). Serving as the student body president at the time, I attended a meeting with staff members who work with DACA and ASSET students to address the situation.
The idea that CSU students who were brought to the US as children and raised as Americans were now subject to deportation was heartbreaking. This issue felt personal. My parents are immigrants, and I was the first Hispanic male to serve as student body president. Several of my friends are immigrants. I grew up playing in the backyard with them.
Immigration policy needs to be viewed through a humanitarian lens. Studies have shown the benefits of the DACA program. However, the label “sanctuary city” is overtly political and would provide many downsides to the people it claims to help. Fort Collins adopting the “sanctuary city” label would be a setback for several reasons.
In the current political climate, with both parties turning immigration into a political football, the worst solution would be to adopt a “sanctuary city” policy because it would cause more harm than good to the communities it claims to help, while providing little more than political fodder to show for it.
First, while the label claims to provide security on behalf of the city to undocumented immigrants, the outcome could be the opposite. Making Fort Collins a “sanctuary city” could put a target on its back for an ICE immigration raid, as occurred in Oakland, and increase the risk of deportation for undocumented immigrants as a result. Adopting this policy may also be short-lived, as several gubernatorial candidates have promised to stand up to “sanctuary cities” if elected.
Second, adopting the “sanctuary city” label in the name of protecting undocumented immigrants is an unfair promise, as this policy is legally unsound. Though immigration policy is sometimes compared to marijuana policy, the legal case for drug policy is much firmer and several key differences exist. Precedent exists for drug enforcement policy being shared by states. Additionally, a bipartisan framework for the enforcement of marijuana law already exists in Congress, through the passage of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment.
By contrast, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that immigration policy is the exclusive Constitutional domain of the federal government, via the Supremacy Clause. The Obama administration successfully used this argument in 2012 against the state of Arizona, and the Trump administration is now using it against California.
Third, though politics remains polarized as the state struggles to agree on how to fund infrastructure and the federal government faces shutdowns, Fort Collins has been able to get things done by building relationships and avoiding toxic and polarizing identity politics. The city has been able to grow and earn a spot as one of the best places to live in America, in part, because of the positive relationships it has been able to cultivate with the state and federal government.
The fruit of these hard-earned relationships has come through grants, which have been used to fund projects such as the MAX. Adopting this controversial label of a “sanctuary city” would jeopardize these relationships and create unnecessary backlash. Fort Collins already attempted to pass a similar policy in 2005, with much controversy, and it failed.
[T]hough politics remains polarized as the state struggles to agree on how to fund infrastructure and the federal government faces shutdowns, Fort Collins has been able to get things done by building relationships and avoiding toxic and polarizing identity politics.
Not only is the “sanctuary city” label harmful, it is unnecessary. Colorado, Fort Collins, and CSU have already taken several steps to achieve many of the inclusivity goals that the “sanctuary city” label aims to achieve, without having to carry the political baggage.
The state of Colorado has had the ASSET program for years. In October, the city passed a resolution affirming its commitment to being inclusive of immigrants. Additionally, CSU has hosted immigration consultations through Student Legal Services to help students navigate the legal minefield.
While DACA students, for now, are shielded from deportation, the federal delegation must continue to work to change these lackluster laws, and in the meantime Fort Collins should not actively work to undermine these laws. As chief Obama strategist David Axelrod said in a conversation with Sen. Michael Bennet, longstanding respect for laws and institutions is one of the factors that distinguishes the United States.
In the current political climate, with both parties turning immigration into a political football, the worst solution would be to adopt a “sanctuary city” policy because it would cause more harm than good to the communities it claims to help, while providing little more than political fodder to show for it.
Fort Collins can be a welcoming place for immigrants without imposing this misguided political burden on itself.
Columnist Josh Silva can be reached at letters@collegian.com or online at @jsflix.
