Current Event

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/us/21sanctuary.html?_r=1&ref=us1

San Fransisco recently overturned the policy in which police were required to turn over possible illegal immigrant juveniles arrested on felony charges to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Since it's beginning last summer, many immigrant minors have been handed over to federal immigrant authorities. With the old policy overturned, referntrals are only made if they're convicted. Immigration advocates claim that deportation after arrest has had many negative results, including deportation of the innocent. The original sanctuary policy was adopted in 1989 and has refused to "refer minors in police custody to the federal authorities" (San Fransisco Immigration article). 2

On the other hand, not referring them has caused issues too. A San Fransisco newspaper discussed the crack dealers that were simply sent to a group home and the immigrant that committed a triple homicide, Edwin Ramos, who was picked up as a kid but never referred to immigration authorities. Federal and state law in regards to sanctuary cities is unsettled. The supervisors vote will be next week and "could invite a federal legal challenge to the entire sanctuary city policy." (San Fransisco Immigration article).3

The conflict here is not only between the state and the federal government, but also between the city and the federal government. The federal government doesn't want this new policy to take over. They want picked up illegal immigrants handed over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement right away, adult or child. They pretty much just don't want to concern themselves with the illegal immigrants, aside from them hopefully finding a way to get them out of the country. The federal government doesn't want the illegal immigrants to stay and wants nothing to do with something that will keep the immigrants here longer. *The state, by putting this new policy into effect, is allowing the city to defy the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that forces them to do whatever the Immigration and Customs Enforcement wants to do. This makes San Fransisco a sanctuary city which means that they're ignoring the federal law. (*information from http://www.sanctuarycities.info/)4

I think that, in this case, the state should be able to decide what they want to do with the immigrants. I don't think the federal government should force the matter if the state would rather do something different. The immigrants are going to be living in California so California should be able to decide what it's policy is. I don't see why the federal government should dictate what the state does with its immigrants. Each state should be able to decide what it wants to do with the immigrants since the immigrants will be living in that state. I think it's more of a state issue than a federal government issue. So I say let the states make the decisions for themselves and let them do what they want with the immigrants.