The Newton City Council approved the “Welcoming City” ordinance last night by a 16-1 vote to protect all residents regardless of their legal status. The Globe’s story is here.
And with that, #NewtonMA affirms its status as a #welcomingcity. #SanctuaryCity pic.twitter.com/KDZ7JFAxjE
— Chris Steele (@CSteele02468) February 22, 2017
@Eric: Actually this has nothing to do with Trump. Under current law many communities have had these policies for many years, they are 100% legal, and money cannot constitutionally be withheld to coerce municipalities to enforce federal immigration law.
Thanks to all the activists and officials who worked so hard to make this a reality, including our Democratic city councilors led by Susan Albright, our Mayor, Former Mayor Cohen, and the police chief.
“and money cannot constitutionally be withheld to coerce municipalities to enforce federal immigration law.”
Bryan, you are the constitutional lawyer, not me. I hope you are 100% correct on that statement. Not 85% correct. Not 90%. I don’t want the Newton Public School’s budget to pay for bad legal advice. Also, I hope you are not counting on Trump putting his ego aside, not being vindictive, and not trying to take away our federal funding. He is not getting MA’s electoral votes in the next election, and I don’t think he cares.
Now that we have a ‘Welcome’ ordinance, does that mean we can remove the ‘Welcome to Newton’ signs at the borders like from Brookline? Or does it make sense to consider building a wall between Brookline & Newton?
@Jeff: In the age of Trump I never say never, and of course he could try, but we have to be able to rely on the courts to continue to uphold the constitution or we’ve got much bigger problems.
What federal funds, exactly, would be in danger (especially in a so-called “small government” GOP administration), if we are to believe there is actually a chance of something happening to funds? Why should that ambiguous threat be enough for a city to defy compassion and ignore its immigrant roots? I’m glad Newton has joined so many other communities in sending a message to the administration.
The issue is not “immigrants”. It is “ILLEGAL” immigrants. Really, folks, Trump’s wife is a legal immigrant, a naturalized US citizen.
The problem in this debate is the disingenuous nature of the people on one side of this debate.
It’s reasonable to debate what to do about illegal immigrants, to see if different rules or approaches need to be used to deal with different situations, like families, children, capable workers, drug dealers, criminals, welfare scammers, etc. They’re not the same.
There’s no debate about legal immigrants, so let’s not conflate these groups as if anyone who opposes things like sanctuary cities must be xenophobic or bigoted. It isn’t true.
There is no such thing as an “illegal” immigrant. No person is illegal. Furthermore, our immigration system is far more complex than that makes it seem. Immigrants can become permanent residents by seeking asylum in the US despite being here without documentation.
According to federal US Citizenship and Immigration Services: “To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.”
You actually can’t seek asylum without being present in the United States. Is someone “illegal” if they cross a border into the United States to escape violence or persecution in their home country, which would give them grounds to eventually obtain asylum and permanent resident status? I would argue they clearly are not.
Bryan,
You’re playing the disingenuous game again. You know what the issue is. Not all illegals are asylum-seekers. Probably most aren’t. But again, they are one class of illegals and we should have an appropriate way of dealing with their situation. Letting them flood in uncontrolled by the millions as was done in Europe without knowing really who they are is, I think, not wise for us for many reasons.