When 'Sanctuary' Becomes a Dirty Word

Once again, Rudolph W. Giuliani and Mitt Romney are on opposite sides of an argument about their respective records as mayor of New York and governor of Massachusetts. Romney fired the first shot on this one, depicting New York as a "sanctuary city" that provided refuge to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. Giuliani responded by alleging that his rival ran a "sanctuary mansion," a reference to the undocumented Guatemalans who looked after Romney's lawn for several years while he was governor. Let's try to sort it all out.

THE FACTS

Romney has made a lot out of "sanctuary cities." But a search of the Nexis-Lexis database shows that the term was not in widespread use before 2001. There was, however, a "sanctuary movement," dating back to the mid-1980s, that was aimed at persuading the Reagan administration to permit half a million undocumented refugees from war-torn Central American countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador to remain in the United States. The refugees found haven in churches and synagogues whose members put pressure on local city councils to curtail their cooperation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

The first cities to embrace "sanctuary policies" were Berkeley, Calif., and St. Paul, Minn., which passed resolutions in February 1988 opposing the federal government's policies of deporting Central American refugees. Berkeley described itself as a "City of Refuge." A number of other larger cities, including New York, issued directives ordering city employees not to report illegal immigrants to the INS unless they had committed a crime. But most of these places never formally declared themselves to be "sanctuary cities."

The New York policy toward illegal immigrants was enshrined in Executive Order 124, signed by then-Mayor Edward I. Koch on Aug. 7, 1989. The order prohibited city employees from providing "information respecting any alien to federal immigration authorities" unless "required by law" or in cases when the illegal immigrant was suspected of "engaging in criminal activity." Koch justified the policy by arguing that many undocumented workers refused to make use of city services because they were afraid that they would be reported to the federal immigration authorities. The order stated that other residents would be disadvantaged "if some who live in the City are uneducated, inadequately protected from crime, or untreated from illness."

Executive Order 124 remained in force under Koch's successors, David N. Dinkins and Giuliani. The legality of the Koch order went unchallenged until 1997 when Congress adopted a new immigration law that made it illegal for cities to prohibit employees from providing information about illegal immigrants to the immigration service. Giuliani sued the federal government over the new law, arguing that it would "create chaos in New York City," by discouraging illegal immigrants from reporting crimes and sending their children to school. A federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the mayor, and he was forced to modify the policy.

So who is right: Giuliani or Romney? The Romney campaign was unable to provide a citation or quotation to support the governor's assertion that New York "called itself a sanctuary city" under Giuliani. But the Congressional Research Service, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, has listed New York as one of several dozen cities following "sanctuary policies." I examined the question of the Guatemalans on Romney's lawn in a previous post. Romney is technically correct in saying that the Guatemalans did not work directly "for" him: They worked for a company that he contracted to look after his grounds. On the other hand, Giuliani is correct in saying that the Guatemalans worked "at" the Romney mansion. It boils down to a question of semantics: "at" vs. "for." Take your pick.

THE PINOCCHIO TEST

Both Giuliani and Romney are attempting to walk a very fine line, painting the most negative possible picture of their rival's record while avoiding factual error. In the particular exchange cited above, Giuliani has managed this feat a little more adroitly than Romney. Romney makes two mistakes. (1) His campaign has not provided support for his assertion that New York "called itself a sanctuary city." (2) Illegal immigrants did work "at" his mansion. Two Pinocchios for the governor.

ONE PINOCCHIO: Some shading of the facts; TWO PINOCCHIOS: Significant omissions Or exaggerations; THREE PINOCCHIOS: Significant factual errors; FOUR PINOCCHIOS: Real whoppers; THE GEPPETTO CHECK MARK: Statements and claims contain the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth