George Washington, The Constitution & Sanctuary States

As I read this letter I was struck by the prescient thoughts it offered. One section highlighted below speaks to the importance of recognizing limited federal governance as defined by representative legislation and thus informing the world that the new nation of individual States was united. These thoughts would be fully expressed later in the Constitution of the United States.

So how does this bring us to Sanctuary States? Well, let us start with Washington’s excerpt below which outlines how unified states must govern.

“That it is indispensable to the happiness of the individual states that there should be lodged somewhere a supreme power to regulate and govern the general concerns of the confederated republic, without which the Union cannot be of long duration. That there must be a faithful and pointed compliance, on the part of every state, with the late proposals of and demands of Congress, or the most fatal consequences will ensue; that whatever measures have a tendency to dissolve the Union, or contribute to violate or lessen the sovereign authority, ought to be considered as hostile to the liberty and independency of America, and the authors of them treated accordingly.”

Simply stated, to remain united and stable the States must be subject to federal laws they themselves promulgate and failure to do so endanger the Union and violators must be held accountable. These tenets are now memorialized in the U.S. Constitution and codified in legislated law.

Currently, 12 U.S. States are self-identified as “Sanctuary States” and within these States over two hundred counties and cities have adopted similar policies refusing to abide by federal immigration law to include non-cooperation with federal officials responsible for enforcement.

Given the clarity of Washington’s thoughts later embodied in the U.S. Constitution, how does one rationalize contemporary sanctuary policies and practices? And how is this glaring evident tolerated by federal authorities and why are offending jurisdictional leaders not held accountable? The answers are several, but the simplest explanation is the offending authorities are partisan ideologues rather than democrats hoping that constituencies will be more pleased than offended—a simple calculus for staying in office. In some States, policy makers are relying on state and local “sovereign immunity” which they believe protects them from policy outcomes—can such immunity bypass preeminent federal law and condone acts resulting in the death of citizens and destruction of public and private property?

Well, change may finally be on the way as the incumbent Administration has decided to enforce federal authority, and the most recent target is Los Angeles, California. Not only has Los Angeles refused to cooperate with the federal immigration authorities their policies have, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ), contributed directly to widespread rioting, looting, and vandalism requiring military activations to restore order. On deck for similar action is Chicago where its mayor has declared the city will not comply regardless of Constitutional law. Other offending authorities are undoubtedly watching DOJ lawsuits, which, if successful, portend more litigation with increasingly righteous and costly momentum. To paraphrase Edger Allen Poe, New York, New Jersey, and Chicago will soon hear a rapping, a not so gentle tapping at their chamber doors and it is not the wind it is something more—much more.

Ben Franklin warned us about how corruption brings tyranny, but I remain hopeful that Abe Lincoln’s Better Angels will arrive in time to save the Union once again.