No sanctuary

Immigration enforcement not a local option

Immigration in the United States is an issue with no easy answers. Reasonable people motivated by good intentions reside on all sides of the debate.

The insufficiency of the nation’s legal immigration system, the sometimes self-serving inattention to border enforcement by our federal government and its leaders and the willingness of “visitors” to this country to break its laws have contributed to a problem that sometimes seems insurmountable.

Northwest Arkansas is home to tens of thousands of immigrants, some who reside legally in the country and some who do not. The vast majority of them attempt to live their lives without trouble, having come here not to cause problems but to chart a path toward a better life.

Who, given an opportunity to create better circumstances for themselves or their families, would reject it? Who, given an opportunity to escape from untenable conditions at home, wouldn’t try to seek out a place where spouses and children can have a chance to thrive?

Two Northwest Arkansas cities have joined what’s called the “Welcoming Communities” initiative promoted locally by the EngageNWA organization. That organization was founded by Wal-Mart, Tyson Foods, J.B. Hunt, Arvest Bank, the University of Arkansas and several other businesses or organizations. Among its goals is to help people from abroad, people who perhaps struggle to become engaged in the region’s culture and social networks.

Fayetteville and Springdale have joined the Welcoming Community initiative, which strives to promote inclusive behaviors by government institutions, social events at which everyone will feel welcome, and efforts to help immigrants navigate local services and laws.

What being a welcoming community does not do, according to Springdale Mayor Doug Sprouse and Fayetteville Mayor Lioneld Jordan, is start their towns down a path toward “sanctuary city” status.

Such cities are those like Seattle, San Francisco, Austin, Houston, New York, Minneapolis and others that adopt policies and procedures designed to shelter people who reside in the country illegally from any enforcement of immigration laws and deportation.

While Sprouse and Jordan undoubtedly want their communities to feel welcoming to people from different cultures and backgrounds, they wisely don’t want any part of a more radical approach involving active defiance of the nation’s immigration laws.

As city leaders, they undoubtedly understand the trouble that can come from encouraging people to ignore or openly violate laws. Their municipalities have their own laws they expect people to follow. How can they stand on solid moral ground in that expectation if they actively promote the violation of federal laws?

Despite those mayors’ efforts to limit the interpretation of what their “welcoming community” involvement means, it’s hard to control what others make of it. An organizer of a recent rally opposing deportations cited the cities’ participation as a sign they don’t support the nation’s enforcement of immigration laws.

That organizer went on to use the welcoming community status as justification for his criticism of Washington County Sheriff Tim Helder, whose agency participates in a federal program that helps determine whether people arrested on criminal charges are also likely to be in the country illegally.

“Fayetteville and Springdale have declared themselves Welcoming Communities, and yet Tim is not on board,” the organizer’s statement said.

That’s one of the troubles with a broad initiative such as the Welcoming Communities imitative, as benign as it is. It so closely associates Fayetteville and Springdale to more radical ideas that their involvement can be co-opted.

As for that criticism of Helder, it’s misplaced. Although the sheriff’s office years ago participated in some federal immigration enforcement efforts, its approach has evolved. His deputies aren’t out in the community checking people’s papers or raiding homes looking for violators of federal immigration laws. Those who stay out of his jail aren’t going to be checked against federal records to determine their legal status.

But once accused of any crime that leads to booking in the county jail, people fill out booking forms. If a person indicates he was born in another country, specially trained deputies with access to federal resources will try to determine whether that person is legally in the country. If so, he’s booked through like anyone else. If there’s evidence the person is not legally in this country, federal agents are notified.

“What they want me to do,” Helder said,” is turn a blind eye to a law that’s on the books. That makes no sense to any law enforcement officer, and I’ve been one for 38 years.”

As long as Helder’s deputies even-handedly apply the measures that trigger a review of immigration status — using it whether the inmate’s name is Miguel, Johann, Anatoly or Lars — the approach appears to be fair and not overly aggressive. It will never set well with those who want to ignore the nation’s immigration laws, but hopefully we haven’t become a nation in which ignoring the law is a local option.

How the United States enforces its immigration laws and what those laws will be are vital matters deserving of a vigorous debate. Giving “sanctuary” to the millions of immigrants in this nation illegally, however, is not a local decision.

That said, the nation’s immigration policies need serious reform. We’re convinced the nation won’t deport its way out of the mess its gotten into by lax enforcement for decades. The sooner that’s debated and resolved in Congress, the better.