To Be... or Not To Be... A Sanctuary City
A quick historical review of the word sanctuary can help us understand that the idea of sanctuary is an archaic institution in communities dating before the 4th century.
For me, the word sanctuary evokes thoughts of:
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the word sanctuary means, in terms of religion, a sacred place, set apart from the profane, ordinary world. Over time, sanctuaries also became a place of sacred protection where criminals had refuge, if only temporary.
Thus, sanctuary came to serve a social function where all could be forgiven, at least for a bit.
Because the institution is so old and far-reaching, it truly seems impossible to ban or do away with it anytime soon.
Moreover, and speaking less metaphorically, the state of Texas has always been one that preferred more power locally and statewide. It has always preferred to give less and adhere less to power at the national level. As our reading says, it has always been a power struggle between statewide and federal powers in finding the right relationship and balance. And, it is said today that we are in a state of New Federalism where power is gradually being returned to states over the national government.
With that being said, many people will argue that sanctuary cities are those that harbor criminals and ignore sweeping federal laws. Many will say, well, if sanctuary cities can ignore federal immigration laws, why can’t we ignore federal civil or equal rights laws? What’s next? Fining the police chief, mayor and them carting them off to jail? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Is this a crisis and threat to American democracy? I doubt it.
Why? Well, the 10th Amendment provides for the separation of federal and state powers. We wanted states to have their own power. So, while the topic remains divisive, pitting conservatives against liberals, and the President blabs on about how sanctuary cities undermine law enforcement and endanger communities, I don’t support banning them.
While both sides can manipulate facts to support whatever they think is best for the public, I think the “Show me your papers or else” vibe of the legislation should be replaced with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Further, the passing of SB 4 would lead to more divided and segregated communities where violence, racial profiling, and racial stereotypes would flourish. Banning sanctuary cities would mean local officials would need to more aggressively detain immigrants who are in their city illegally. Assumptions will be made immediately against those who speak Spanish in public or look a certain way before knowing the facts. These preemptive prejudices by local officials will thereby taint every following interaction with the person in question with negativity, nativism and the assumption of questionable immigration status.
All-in-all, banning sanctuary cities and the passing of SB 4 ain't good.
For me, the word sanctuary evokes thoughts of:
- The song “She Sells Sanctuary” by The Cult;
- Taking sanctuary in a church;
- Protection from evil things;
- A place to parlay and be on equal terms without violence;
- A place to worship;
- A place to be safe;
- A place of forgiveness;
- A place to conduct ancient rituals;
- A place to consecrate magical/revered items.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the word sanctuary means, in terms of religion, a sacred place, set apart from the profane, ordinary world. Over time, sanctuaries also became a place of sacred protection where criminals had refuge, if only temporary.
Thus, sanctuary came to serve a social function where all could be forgiven, at least for a bit.
Because the institution is so old and far-reaching, it truly seems impossible to ban or do away with it anytime soon.
Moreover, and speaking less metaphorically, the state of Texas has always been one that preferred more power locally and statewide. It has always preferred to give less and adhere less to power at the national level. As our reading says, it has always been a power struggle between statewide and federal powers in finding the right relationship and balance. And, it is said today that we are in a state of New Federalism where power is gradually being returned to states over the national government.
With that being said, many people will argue that sanctuary cities are those that harbor criminals and ignore sweeping federal laws. Many will say, well, if sanctuary cities can ignore federal immigration laws, why can’t we ignore federal civil or equal rights laws? What’s next? Fining the police chief, mayor and them carting them off to jail? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Is this a crisis and threat to American democracy? I doubt it.
Why? Well, the 10th Amendment provides for the separation of federal and state powers. We wanted states to have their own power. So, while the topic remains divisive, pitting conservatives against liberals, and the President blabs on about how sanctuary cities undermine law enforcement and endanger communities, I don’t support banning them.
While both sides can manipulate facts to support whatever they think is best for the public, I think the “Show me your papers or else” vibe of the legislation should be replaced with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Further, the passing of SB 4 would lead to more divided and segregated communities where violence, racial profiling, and racial stereotypes would flourish. Banning sanctuary cities would mean local officials would need to more aggressively detain immigrants who are in their city illegally. Assumptions will be made immediately against those who speak Spanish in public or look a certain way before knowing the facts. These preemptive prejudices by local officials will thereby taint every following interaction with the person in question with negativity, nativism and the assumption of questionable immigration status.
All-in-all, banning sanctuary cities and the passing of SB 4 ain't good.
Comments