Print 
PDF
An immigration enforcement organization says a sheriff in Washington state is well within his right to assist federal law enforcement, even if his state is a sanctuary for illegals.
State Attorney General Nick Brown (D) has filed a suit against Adams County and its sheriff, Dale Wagner, for aiding federal immigration enforcement efforts, like in two counties in New York.
Be informed, not misled.
An immigration enforcement organization says a sheriff in Washington state is well within his right to assist federal law enforcement, even if his state is a sanctuary for illegals.
A public policy analyst is encouraged that two New York counties are defying their governor's sanctuary policy.
The Trump administration has been in a constant battle with Governor Kathy Hochul (D-New York), who refuses to cooperate with federal immigration agents to apprehend and deport illegal aliens.
For example, two Venezuelan migrants, reputedly members of the Tren de Aragua gang, were released without bail last month after the Queens District Attorney's Office reduced their felony gun and drug charges to lesser offenses.
But now, two counties have decided to ignore Hochul and assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The Washington State lawsuit, filed in Superior County Court, claims that both the sheriff and his county are violating the state's sweeping sanctuary law, the Keep Washington Working Act, which significantly limits state officers' ability to assist in immigration enforcement.
Can a County Sheriff do this?
His comments were published by American Family News:
Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), however, says Sheriff Wagner is completely within his rights.
"Federal law does say that any government official at any level of government has the right and the ability to cooperate with federal immigration authorities," he cites. "That was codified back during the Clinton administration, and this sheriff in Eastern Washington has decided that he's going to do just that."
He is confident the Trump administration will support Wagner and defend the law against any effort to undermine its enforcement.
"Attorneys general like Nick Brown and other sanctuary politicians, they understand what they're doing here," Mehlman asserts. "Basically, they're trying to run the clock. The judicial system tends to work rather slowly, and even if they end up losing in the long run, they have thrown sand in the gears. And that is as much of the objective as really testing the legality in the courts."
FAIR expects the lawsuit to take significant time to resolve, and the case may ultimately wind its way to the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before possibly reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.
A financial disaster
In 2022, The Heritage Foundation published an article on the issue of "sanctuary" detailing the costs involved for states that have become sanctuaries."
They said in part,
"Record numbers of illegal immigrants are entering the country illegally and spreading throughout the interior of United States—and it’s playing out in a sadly predictable way."
Sanctuary cities like Washington, D.C., New York City and Chicago are sagging under the weight of the cost required to support these new arrivals. Now their mayors are complaining about it, apparently surprised that their poor policies have played out, well … poorly.
Of course, border communities have been hit even harder by this problem. They’ve been struggling to cope with it for years. The difference is that they are suffering due to their geographic location, not because of policies they’ve adopted. But their problems have increased dramatically since the Biden administration implemented its open-border policies.
Those policies are expensive, imposing tens of billions of dollars in costs on state and local governments and U.S. taxpayers every year. Increasingly, those costs are incurred by states nowhere near the southwest border.
What does the Bible say about "sanctuary" cities and states?
Bryan Fischer, a friend of mine, has written the following on this subject:
We are all familiar by now with the term “sanctuary cities,” communities that have pledged to be a place where undocumented immigrants may be safe without fear of apprehension and deportation by federal authorities.
Many claim that these are inspired by the ancient “cities of refuge” found in the Bible, in the narratives dealing with Israel occupying the ancient land of Canaan. Therefore, they argue, there is a biblical precedent for sanctuary cities. As Vogue magazine says, “Now approximately 300 American cities are carrying the torch first lit by those sacred altars.”
So, are today’s “sanctuary cities” a modern biblical expression of the Bible’s “cities of refuge?” No, not even close.
For openers, cities of refuge were legal, sanctuary cities are not. Cities of refuge, which you can read about in Numbers 35 and Joshua 22, were authorized under the Mosaic code to serve as a part of Israel’s justice system. Sanctuary cities, in contrast, are illegal and outside the justice system altogether.
Cities of refuge were places where someone who had committed involuntary manslaughter could flee and find safety until the day of his trial. “The manslayer who strikes any person without intent or unknowingly may flee there. They shall be for you a refuge from the avenger of blood" (Joshua 20:3), the oldest male relative of the deceased who otherwise might carry out vigilante justice on the part of the family.
The “manslayer” could stay in the city of refuge until his case came to trial: “He shall remain in that city until he has stood before the congregation for judgment” (Joshua 20:6). If the trial determined that the death was indeed accidental, the accused would be allowed to live and be exonerated of all guilt. On the other hand, if the trial revealed that the death wasn’t involuntary after all, only made to look that way, then the accused would be taken outside the city and receive his due punishment.
The whole point was that the accused deserved a fair trial and his day in court, and it was the job of a city of refuge to see that he got it. In other words, the purpose of a city of refuge was to ensure that the rights of the accused to due process were observed.
However, sanctuary cities, in contrast, do not exist to protect due process. They exist to enable the guilty to escape punishment altogether. The mere presence of an illegal alien on American soil is an illegal, criminal act which is the proper subject of law enforcement. No matter how well-meaning they are, those who help others avoid facing the legal consequences of such criminal conduct are subverting the justice system, not cooperating with it.
A city of refuge worked with law enforcement, a sanctuary city works against it. A city of refuge served to guarantee a man his day in court, a sanctuary city works to prevent the accused from ever facing a day in court. A city of refuge existed to ensure that every man received a fair trial; a sanctuary city exists to enable a man to avoid a fair trial altogether.
So, no, sanctuary cities are not a modern embodiment of biblical cities of refuge, and only Christians with a shallow understanding of Scripture could believe they are. As James Hoffmeier of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School puts it, such Christians “are twisting biblical statutes to political ends and subverting federal law.”
Finally, regarding this network of sanctuary churches, should not the role of the Church of Jesus Christ be to help its members become law-abiding rather than law-breaking disciples?
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Engaged. Be Prayerful.
