California Sanctuary Law Should Withstand Trump Challenge

Supporting a state’s rights. Professional Photographer: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images. Donald Trump’s very first see as president to the hostile area of California highlights his battle with the state. Most just recently that fight has been over the sanctuary laws that the state Legislature has passed which Trump’s attorneys have challenged in court. Yet it’s worth remembering that California has a long history of imitating a republic unto itself on migration– which, not so long earlier, the state was more hostile to immigrants than the federal government, not less. Travel in time with me back to 1994. At that time, the state voted extremely (59 percent to 41 percent) by referendum to embrace Proposition 187, also referred to as the Save Our State effort (SOS, get it?). Republican Pete Wilson was guv, and he rode his assistance for the effort to an effective run for a 2nd term.

Prop 187 was the polar reverse of the sanctuary laws just recently embraced by the state. It enforced an affirmative commitment on California law-enforcement authorities who presumed that an arrestee may be undocumented to examine the person’s migration status and report the person to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. City governments were purchased to comply. The very same examination requirement used to anybody looking for public gain from the state– advantages like healthcare, education, and well-being that the effort specifically rejected to undocumented people. Pro-immigrant supporters challenged Prop 187 in federal court. A district court obstructed practically every element of the effort from working. The judge’s thinking was that Congress, not California, has legal authority over migration. “California,” she held, “is helpless to enact its own legal plan to manage migration … It is also helpless to enact its own legal plan to manage alien access to public advantages.”.

Guv Wilson submitted an appeal, but when Democrat Gray Davis prospered him, in 1999, he withdrew the appeal in favor of a mediation that wound up ditching the effort. The judge’s judgment properly illustrated the politics of the effort: California citizens wished to develop their own migration program, far harsher than the one embraced by federal law. Today California politics have changed noticeably– but the state is still pursuing a policy noticeably different from federal standards. Senate Bill 54, which is now state law, particularly restricts state and local police authorities from examining arrestees’ migration status or reporting that status to federal authorities. This is, naturally, 180 degrees opposite from Prop 187, which required examination and reporting. The Justice Department has challenged SB 54 in addition to 2 other state sanctuary laws in court. Unsurprisingly, the feds’ legal theory is that California is once again pre-empting the federal authority to make migration policy. The 2 other laws might, in fact, go too far. One makes it a criminal activity for personal company owner in the state to comply willingly with federal authorities carrying out examinations in the work environment. That most likely interferes excessively with federal authority, not to point out the companies’ liberty.