Whenever someone makes the blanket statement that there are no sanctuary cities in a particular state, be very skeptical.\u00a0 It often means they\u2019re trying to define away the term and narrow it into meaninglessness.\u00a0 In other words, just because a community doesn\u2019t label itself as a sanctuary community doesn\u2019t mean that it doesn\u2019t embrace sanctuary policies.\u00a0 Clearly, actions speak louder than words.<\/p>\n
The Hawkeye State doesn\u2019t have any cities or counties that have proudly and defiantly raised the sanctuary flag like San Francisco.\u00a0 But there are jurisdictions in Iowa that nevertheless have dangerous sanctuary policies. Although the number of sanctuary policies appears to have dropped somewhat<\/a> since the Trump Administration took office, Iowa still has more than a dozen counties<\/a> that refuse to honor immigration detainers.\u00a0 And it has at least four cities that go even further than that and have adopted police department policies or local resolutions saying they won\u2019t take action or expend any resources on enforcing immigration law or detecting violations of it. They include: Ames<\/a>, Des Moines<\/a>, Iowa City<\/a>, and Windsor Heights<\/a>.<\/p>\n They may call themselves \u201cwelcoming\u201d rather than \u201csanctuary,\u201d or they may not call themselves anything at all, but they have sanctuary policies \u2013 policies that interfere with the free sharing of information or cooperation with federal immigration officials \u2013 so they are sanctuary cities and sanctuary counties.\u00a0 To say otherwise is sophistry: it\u2019s playing word games.\u00a0 And the media have been all too happy to play along<\/a> by saying there are no sanctuaries in the state.<\/p>\n The state legislature doesn\u2019t seem to have fallen for the games, fortunately.\u00a0 They finally recognized that the fiscal and human costs were simply too high not to act.<\/p>\n According to FAIR\u2019s 2017 cost study<\/a>, \u201cThe Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,\u201d Iowa spends a little over $203 million a year on illegal aliens.\u00a0 That comes out of total state spending<\/a> that in Fiscal Year 2016 wasn\u2019t even $7.3 billion, so it\u2019s close to 3 percent of the budget: hardly nothing.\u00a0 But the numbers don\u2019t tell the human story of Iowans victimized by criminal aliens who should never have been in the country in the first place: Iowans who\u2019ve been sexually abused as children<\/a>, killed by drunk drivers<\/a>, or had their identities stolen<\/a>, just to mention a few.\u00a0 Even one instance is too many and each one might have been prevented.<\/p>\n Last year, a bill was introduced in the Iowa Senate, SF 481<\/a>, to ban the dangerous sanctuary policies that keep some of these criminal aliens from being deported.\u00a0 The bill prohibits local governments from, among other things, not honoring detainers or adopting policies that restrict their officers from investigating people\u2019s immigration status: in other words, sanctuary policies.\u00a0 It allows any state resident to file a complaint, for the attorney general or a county attorney to sue based on a complaint, and for any city or county ultimately found in violation to have state funds withheld until it complies.\u00a0 Pretty straightforward and, since there aren\u2019t any \u201creal\u201d sanctuary cities or counties in Iowa, you\u2019d think there\u2019d have been no opposition to it.<\/p>\n Instead, the opposition was full of heated rhetoric about unconstitutionality, as well as the same old unsubstantiated open-borders talking-points myth<\/a> that sanctuary policies encourage illegal aliens to report crimes and cooperate with local police in solving them. \u00a0Concurrently, they continued to report that there aren\u2019t any sanctuary cities in Iowa.\u00a0 The bill, SF 481, \u00a0passed the Senate by a vote of 32-15<\/a> on April 12, 2017, with four Democrats<\/a> joining 28 Republicans to support it.<\/p>\n Iowa is one of 25 states that carry over legislation from the first to the second year\u2019s session of a two-year term.\u00a0 So this year, once the legislature re-convened on January 8th, SF 481 quickly started moving again, this time in the House.\u00a0 And the contradictory rhetoric opposing it resumed and escalated just as quickly.<\/p>\n We\u2019re repeatedly told both that the bill would be harmful<\/a>\u00a0because it would interfere with local law enforcement\u2019s current policies, as well as that \u201cIowa has no sanctuary cities\u201d<\/a>.\u00a0 It appears to have escaped the people making these two points that they\u2019re mutually exclusive: they literally cannot both be true.<\/p>\n SF 481 passed<\/a> a three-member House subcommittee on January 31<\/a>.\u00a0 It has not yet received a hearing date in the full House Committee on Public Safety, but Chairman Clel Baudler has expressed support<\/a> for the measure, so that can probably be expected sooner rather than later.\u00a0 If approved there, then it will go to the House floor.\u00a0 Should it pass both chambers, Governor Kim Reynolds has also indicated her support<\/a>.<\/p>\n The legislature doesn\u2019t adjourn until April 17, so there\u2019s plenty of time still, but the House and the governor should follow the Senate\u2019s lead, ignore the opposition\u2019s confused and contradictory word games, and protect Iowans by enacting SF 481 into law as soon as possible.