Republican governors Greg Abbott of Texas, Doug Ducey of Arizona, and Ron DeSantis of Florida have developed a strategy to draw attention to the immigration crisis.
They’re shipping small numbers of assenting immigrants and asylum-seekers to areas that advertise themselves specifically as safe havens for illegal immigrants and asylum-seekers. These areas, known colloquially as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, include cities, counties, and even entire states with laws severely limiting or prohibiting local law enforcement from cooperating or coordinating with federal immigration officials.
DeSantis, Ducey, and Abbott have flown and bused immigrants to New York City, Washington, D.C., Illinois, and Massachusetts, each of which boasts of robust and progressive “sanctuary” policies. The Republican argument is that because sanctuary policies encourage immigrants to cross illegally into border states, sanctuary jurisdictions should have to shoulder some of the burden.
The scheme itself is not difficult to understand. It’s not about alleviating sheer numbers. Indeed, the number of immigrants the Republican governors have sent so far is just a small fraction of what the border states are currently dealing with (and have dealt with for decades). The strategy is about highlighting the border crisis and the effects of lax immigration enforcement. It’s about forcing the issue.
What is difficult to understand, however, is the response from the targeted sanctuary jurisdictions. It has been both furious and panicked. The modest increase in immigrants from Texas and elsewhere has left leaders in Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., New York, and Illinois seething. They’ve declared “public emergencies.” They called on the National Guard for assistance. They’ve accused the Republican governors of “racism” and “xenophobia.”
Why? Did they never expect their respective jurisdictions would be called on to act as, well, sanctuaries? Apparently not!
In Massachusetts, which is home to eight sanctuary jurisdictions, officials in Martha’s Vineyard were horrified this week when they discovered 50 immigrants on their island.
“At some point in time,” said Lisa Belcastro, the coordinator of Martha’s Vineyard’s homeless shelter, “they have to move from here to somewhere else, right? We don’t have the services to take care of 50 immigrants. And we certainly don’t have housing — we’re in a housing crisis as we are on this island.”
Elsewhere, the Martha’s Vineyard Chamber of Commerce referred to the sudden appearance of 50 immigrants as a “humanitarian crisis.”
“This is an ongoing situation,” the county Emergency Management Association declared in a statement titled “Martha’s Vineyard Humanitarian Response.”
“We have reached out to our State and Federal partners for additional long-term support and assistance,” the statement added. “All activated Emergency Management will remain in effect as we learn more and anticipate our State partners coordinated response.”
Remember, we’re talking about 50 (f-i-f-t-y) immigrants. This seems an awfully overwrought response for an island that reportedly hosts 150,000 visitors each summer. (For reference, there are also an estimated 17,000 permanent residents who live on the infamously wealthy island year-round.)
The response is doubly perplexing given Massachusetts’s top court ruled in 2017 that state court officers “do not have the authority to arrest someone suspected of being in the U.S. illegally if that person is not facing criminal charges,” NBC Boston reports, adding this “effectively gave the state sanctuary status.”
One would think leaders in a supposed “sanctuary” state would be thrilled by the opportunity to make good on that promise. But one would be wrong. Within 36 hours, the immigrants were removed from Martha’s Vineyard. State officials called up the National Guard and bused the immigrants to a nearby military facility. The 50 immigrants left the island without incident, all under the watchful eye of 125 National Guard members.
And to think it was just last year when Dukes County Commissioner Keith Chatinover, whose territory includes Martha’s Vineyard, said, “I would love Martha’s Vineyard to become a haven for new immigrants to this country.”
A “sanctuary” jurisdiction, yes, but only so long as those people don’t go anywhere near our elite vacation spot. They’ll have to go somewhere else. We simply don’t have enough food or housing for 50 people on an island whose entire economy is centered on feeding and housing thousands of people each summer.
In New York, which boasts of nine sanctuary jurisdictions, the response has been the same.
“You should not be using human beings as political pawns,” New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said recently in reference to the governors’ immigration strategy.
New York Mayor Eric Adams, also a Democrat, agreed, saying, “What the Texas governor should do is invite those who were trying to find housing in his state to give them housing, instead of sending them here.”
“We believe,” he added, “based on our preliminary review, people were being interviewed at the border and say, ‘Which state would you like to go to?’ Who’s not going to say New York? That’s a setup question. And this is a real crisis. I don’t know why people are trying to downplay this crisis of almost a hundred new arrivals a day.”
Yes, wherever would immigrants get the idea New York is a go-to location for immigrants? Why would Texans unfairly put such a ridiculous thought in their heads? And why would anyone assume a city with a population of roughly 8.4 million and an annual budget of more than $90 billion would be able to handle a few thousand new immigrants?
“In this new and unforeseen reality, where we expect thousands more to arrive every week going forward, the city’s system is nearing its breaking point,” said Adams. “As a result, the city’s prior practices, which never contemplated the busing of thousands of people into New York City, must be reassessed.”
Again, it’s worth noting that up until the moment Republican governors began shipping immigrants to New York and other sanctuary jurisdictions, Empire State politicians were quite proud of the Big Apple’s sanctuary status. They were more than willing to tell everyone about how open-minded and kindhearted they were compared to those terrible immigration hawks in border states.
In fact, Adams campaigned specifically on maintaining the city’s sanctuary status.
“We should protect our immigrants. Period,” Adams said in 2021. “Yes, New York City will remain a sanctuary city under an Adams administration.”
In Washington, D.C., Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser has declared a “public emergency.” She has also called on the National Guard to tackle the modest increase in immigrants. However, back when it was more fashionable and socially valuable to do so, Bowser touted her city as a shining beacon on a hill for all immigrants and asylum-seekers.
“Washington, D.C., is a sanctuary city,” she boasted in 2018. “We protect the rights and humanity of all our residents, and our [Washington values] and our local culture are guided by a celebration of diversity and inclusivity.”
Sure, we’re a sanctuary city, but please don’t actually take us up on this offer. Otherwise, we’ll call in the feds.
Lastly, in Illinois, which has two sanctuary jurisdictions, Chicago Democratic Mayor Lori Lightfoot has characterized the governors’ strategy as “racist and xenophobic,” even though she herself is a big fan of sanctuary policies.
“Yes, Chicago must be a sanctuary city,” Lightfoot said in 2019. “We’ve got to stand up to the Trump administration’s racist, anti-immigrant terror and make sure every Chicagoan is safe, regardless of citizenship status.”
What part of “sanctuary” do these people not understand? Did they ever intend to act on their rhetoric? Or was it always just talk — a cheap and low-risk way to establish political superiority over the territories that have no choice but to grapple with the immigration crisis every single day, every single year?
It’s easy to say “no human is illegal” or “hate has no home here” when it’s unlikely you’ll ever be required to follow up that commitment with specific action. They’re just words. And it turns out that while there are few personal or professional downsides to claiming you stand on the “right side of history,” there are plenty of upsides insofar as social standing is concerned.
In many cases, merely proclaiming your commitment to the liberal definition of virtue — whether by posting a black square on Instagram in solidarity with Black Lives Matter, tacking a “Climate Action Now” flyer on your front lawn, or adding the Ukrainian flag to your Twitter bio — is all you need to do to win plaudits and awards. That’s it. That’s all you need to do to prove yourself better than everyone else.
Many politicians realize this, which is why they so frequently take part in these empty displays of “virtue.” They want everyone to know they are good, noble, and forward-thinking. It’s a form of public posturing that rarely, if ever, requires follow-through.
But be careful! Someone may take you up on it!
Becket Adams is the program director of the National Journalism Center.
