Do Democrats see gravity of the sanctuary fight?
By Mike Kelly
Columnist
USA Today Network
..... Imagine that your town or city passed a law that blocked its police from helping federal agents arrest tax cheats. Or another law stipulating that the local sewage treatment plant did not have to abide by federal clean water laws. Or even a law that protected local mobsters form being nabbed by the FBI.
.....
Ridiculous? of course. But this is the kind of muddled logic behind the so-called sanctuary movement for undocumented immigrants. And, here in New Jersey, the conflict over this issue is about to grow into a full-scale legal battle.
..... It's about time.
.....
Once again, little New Jersey finds itself at the center of a political fight that has national implications. Yes, New Jersey is a dinky, crowed thumbprint on the American landscape.
..... but what happens in the Garden State in the coming months will likely dictate a course for the rest of America. It also may finally dictate a course for the Democratic Party's efforts to find its soul and message as it tries to recover from the debacle of the 2024 presidential election.
..... In a column last week, [05/25/2025] I pointed
to New Jersey as a test of Democratic candidates for governor this year [2025] to strike the right tone and message in this year's [2025] election. Should they continue to embrace progressive polices and ideas that have largely failed the party in recent elections and contributed nightly to the rise of Donald Trump? Or should they do some real soul-searching and take on a more moderate approach that could connect Democrats with their old working-class base?
..... This new battle in New Jersey over sanctuary laws is part of that soul-searching challenge of transformation for Democrats - only on a much larger scale. The battle over sanctuary status involves the U.S. Constitution and whether states - and, in some cases, small towns and cities - have the right to set their own legal standards that essentially ignore national laws.
..... So once again, it's worth paying attention to what happens in New Jersey - and not just because Bruce Springsteen and Donald Trump are engaging in a hissy fit. In the long and painful dispute over immigration, American is about to fight a major battle in New Jersey.
..... In a lawsuit, field May 22, [2025] the U.S. Justice Department targeted four of New Jersey's most Democratic and progressive cities - Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken - accusing them of violating federal laws by declaring themselves "sanctuary cities." Those cities have long claimed they had the right to ignore U.S. immigration laws and protect illegal migrants from being deported by federal authorities. In other words, those cities feel they have the right to create their own laws and regulations because they disagree with federal standards.
..... This is no small legs wrangle. indeed, the first paragraph of the 24-page federal complaint spells out the largest controversy: "While states
and local governments are free to stand aside as the United States performs this important work, they cannot stand in the way,' the Justice Department wrote. "And where inaction cresses int obstruction, local governments break federal law. That is what is happening across New Jersey right now. It is past time it ends."
..... In other words, the Justice Department is saying that local government has no right to pass laws that supersede or contradict federal law.
..... What's striking here is that the Justice Department's argument is grounded in major rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court that are considered fundamental pillars of the American legal system,
.....
In other words, the Justice Department is not trying to sculpt a whole new set of legal standards. The argument cited by the department are some of the most basic principles of how the federal government operates with states and local communities.
..... If you think this is just an obscure legal fight, consider this: The same question of feudal law-versus-state statutes was at stake decades ago when the U.S. Justice Department waged a campaign to strike down the racist Jim Crow laws enacted by Southern states in trying to sidestep the U.S. Constitution and several key constitutional amendments after the Civil War as a way of maintaining segregation in schools and in other public facilities.
.....
Democrats don't like to hear this kind of analogy - understandably so. The party's progressives who are behind the so-called sanctuary movement see themselves as crusading idealists. (And we all know crusading idealists have no flaws, right?)
..... They don't want to admit that the strategy they now employ is eerily similar to that used by Southern racists who brutalized generations few African Americas with a system of laws that were eventually overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court and several major pieces of legislation in Congress.
.....
The most progressive elements of the Democratic Party have convinced themselves that federal immigration laws are wrong.
..... But instead of finding a way to change immigration laws in Congress, some state and cities have opted for their own path that involves slicing and dicing federal immigration laws to fit their own agendas. This is how the concept of "sanctuary cities" was born, especially here in New Jersey.
..... In other words, if a state or community doesn't like certain federal immigration laws, it has the right to ignore them - or create its own standards. Those old Jim Crow advocates must be cheering from their graves at the irony of what has transpired.
..... Here, in New Jersey, the cites of Newark, Jersey City, Hoboken and Paterson have told the federal government that their local police will not cooperate with immigration agents seeking to round up undocumented migrants. The Democrats who control each of these cities saw this as a policy that would be politically beneficial. Sadly, those Democrats did not stop and notice the legal implications.
..... The Justice Department complaint describes this issue even more bluntly: "These efforts to shield illegal aliens within the Garden State are unlawful."
..... The complaint goes on to point out that these cities - and their mayors, who were also targeted in the lawsuit - "deny federal immigration agents access to illegal aliens in local custody; restrict local officers' ability to hand over illegal aliens to federal agents; and bar otherwise willing local officers form proving mission-critical information to federal immigration authorities." Imagine the outcry if local cops in a small New Jerry town refused to hand over a mobster to federal agents?
.....
For legal scholars and those following the so-called "state" rights" arguments that emerged in the Jim Crow segregation debates, here is a key line of the complaint regarding efforts by self-proclaimed sanctuary sites to thwart federal immigration enforcement: Having local laws establishing sanctuary cities, the complaint says, "violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution many ways over." The Constitution's Supremacy Clause was a key piece of the federal effort to overturn Jim Crow segregation laws.
.....
As if that was not enough, the Justice Department complaint noted that "these are not academic issues." The sanctuary laws of cities, the complaint said, "are working precisely as intend. On the ground, they are impeding the ability of federal officers to do their job." and "federal law does not tolerate that sort of obstruction. Nor does the Constitutions."
..... Do New Jersey;s Democrats - and do the party's national leaders - understand what is happening here? Apparently not.
..... Jersey City's mayor, Steven Fulop, who is also a candidate in the upcoming Democratic gubernatorial primary, called the lawsuit a "political sideshow" and :a stunt."
.....
Paterson Mayor Andre Sayegh called the lawsuit "frivolous' and "a flagrant affront to the rule of law."
..... "We will not be intimidated," he added.
..... And so it went. This columnist is hardly an admirer of Trump - or his MAGA movement. I believe that Trump will go down in history as one of America's worst president. But like many Trump critics, I see little effort by Democrats to find a new message to confront him and his misguided ideas.
..... The latest battle over sanctuary protectionist for unlawful immigrants - and the response to the federal lawsuit against New Jersey cities - is yet another example of how the Democrats continue to trip over themselves and their own misguided progressivism and ideals.
..... If Democrats don't like immigration laws, then the party should cerate a political atmosphere to change them. But just declaring that you won;t abide by federal laws is, in itself, unlawful. This was the fundamental problem with the supporters of racist Jim Crow laws across the South. Sadly, it;s the fundamental problem of the sanctuary movement,
..... Yes, America has an immigration problem. Trump's answer is brutal deportations. Sadly, the Democrats' response of creating sanctuary cities and towns is also brutal - to the U.S. Constitution.