The mayors of Boston, Chicago, Denver, and New York were grilled at a House Oversight Committee hearing on Wednesday over their “sanctuary” policies that encourage illegal immigrants to live in their cities, obtain certain government benefits, and remain in the U.S. illegally.
Ideally, a hearing would see members of Congress asking questions of witnesses who can shed light on a topic for oversight purposes or to better inform them in drafting laws. Everyone would leave a little wiser. Maybe once in a while, someone would change his mind on an issue. Sadly, that scenario is as accurate as the “Schoolhouse Rock” videos I watched in the 1970s between Saturday morning cartoons.
This hearing clocked in at well over six hours, so I shall try to extract the biggest themes and lessons.
First, one has to tune out the noise, which takes several forms, like these:
- Sanctimonious speeches: Some members of Congress use all or most of their allotted five minutes to make political speeches and ask no questions.
- Pitching softballs: Other members ask leading questions that let their side’s witnesses make their whole speech for them. For example:
- Mr. Witness who agrees with me, just how bad is this thing that I’m against?
- Ms. Witness who agrees with me, just how good is this thing that I support?
- The rapid-fire round: Some members like to ask a series of quick questions with only “yes” or “no” as acceptable answers. This is like a game show—with no prizes.
- Irrelevant line of inquiry: In this hearing, several members (notably Reps. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.) tried to trap New York City Mayor Eric Adams into either pleading the Fifth Amendment or admitting that he made a deal with the Department of Justice to drop bribery charges against him in exchange for his helping Immigration and Customs Enforcement with, well, immigration enforcement. Adams, well lawyered-up, didn’t let them land the punch.
- Playing for extra time: Members can enter documents into the hearing record by “unanimous consent.” So, just by reading the title of a newspaper or magazine article and a long subheading that makes a point they want to make, members can score partisan political points without using their limited time. For example, Crockett scored a rare three-pointer using this technique by entering an irrelevant article from USAFacts.org stating that Kentucky ranks third highest among states for relying on federal funding (this was a dig at committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.). Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., succeeded twice at this game, but Comer erupted in rare irritation at her third attempt.
So, leaving out all that noise and more, what were the actual issues in play?
The main questions were, first, whether these blue city mayors distinguish in any way between the rights and privileges of their American citizen voters and those afforded to illegal immigrants. The answer seems to be no in terms of housing, jobs, schools, health care, and more.
The mayors then all pleaded for “comprehensive immigration reform.” When used by elected Democrats, this means amnesty for those here illegally and expanded “legal pathways” for more to get here through mass migration.
The second question was whether these cities should—or will—assist the federal government to enforce immigration law. To that, the response was hedged: They will, grudgingly, for serious criminal offenses. But on routine immigration enforcement, they will do little or nothing.
All the mayors said they cooperated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement when illegal immigrants had criminal warrants. But Boston’s Trust Act, Chicago’s Welcoming [read “sanctuary”] City Ordinance, and Denver’s Public Safety Enforcement Priorities are policies that limit the information local police officers can share with ICE.
For example, Denver police are not allowed to hand over aliens to ICE inside jail premises. Recently, ICE had to send six agents to pick up just one Tren de Aragua gangster in an adjacent parking lot where the alien assaulted and bit one agent during the handoff.
Incredibly, I didn’t hear mention of HR 32, the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act proposed by Republican Rep. Nick LaLota of New York, until six hours into the hearing. The act would prevent certain federal funds from going to cities that have sanctuary policies. But that’s the bottom line: If blue cities want to continue with policies that resist federal enforcement of immigration law, they might have to ask their voters to pay for it, not Uncle Sam and the rest of the country’s taxpayers.
At the end of the hearing circus, no one’s mind was changed. Well-prepared at taxpayer expense (Boston Mayor Michelle Wu alone spent $650,000 on legal advice), the mayors ducked and dodged the blame for the illegal immigration wave of the past few years. (Though, I’ll bet they were quietly grateful to President Donald Trump for ending it before their own besieged and bankrupted cities’ voters turned on them).
Members of Congress will have clips of their performances for social media. Some—notably Reps. Brian Jack, R-Ga., and Gabe Evans, R-Colo.—distinguished themselves as dignified, informed questioners.
Several members brought up the supremacy clause of the Constitution, by which federal law trumps state and local laws if there is a conflict. But this hearing made it clear that sanctuary jurisdictions will continue to push that line to the limit to subvert immigration law enforcement.
At least three of the sanctuary city mayors will go back to business as usual—as long as their electorates will let them. The challenge for New York’s Adams, meanwhile, is to increase cooperation with the feds—because his city is simply overwhelmed—while still maintaining illegal immigrant-friendly local laws and politics.
The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more.
Read Other BorderLine Columns:
Yes, Every Noncitizen in the US Should Register
Canada’s Migrant Crisis Spills Over to US, Raising Concerns
