A Case for Sanctuary Cities

Since before the founding of this country, people have made their way to our lands. Some came seeking opportunity, others freedom. This was a land recognized for welcoming all regardless of their prior circumstance or condition. Indeed, the national ethos was recognized worldwide and preserved by Emma Lazarus in “The New Colossus”:

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

These words accurately describe the majority condition for those risking what little they have for something better. A brief recounting is sufficient to remind us from what these seekers fled: religious persecution, governmental ostracization, economic or resource destitution, etc. They have struggled to develop in their respective circumstances under constraints that might give a sense of security but in actuality inhibited freedom. Sadly, many who began the trek did not survive, succumbing to the elements, illness, hunger, or thirst; but those who survived were welcomed to integrate themselves into society as productive members.

Over time, the open borders became more constrained as obstacles were established to slow the influx. Laws enacted to regulate who would be allowed to reside in our country based on a series of predetermined stipulations: Are there familial ties established within our borders? Are they wanted for a unique skill set? Does their presence constitute a public good? Will they place an undue burden on society? These laws had a dual purpose. Our economy would be protected from the additional residents, and those considered undesirable would not be allowed entry.

In recent years, the bureaucracy established to regulate the number of people entering our country to establish residency has become a major impediment to entry. Because of the long waiting period for entry, many have tried to circumvent procedures surreptitiously. While some have had success in prematurely accelerating the process, too many have ended in death. No good comes from this. While these people may not be citizens, they are human beings that should be accorded basic rights until such time as they can take their place in society. What we need are sanctuary cities—in great number. Are you puzzled by this suggestion seeing that there are many already established across the United States? The individuals to whom we should be offering sanctuary are the most vulnerable and least able to care for themselves, those poised to vie for a place on American soil—the unborn.

Unborn children are increasingly being considered less worthy than an immigrant trying to gain residency. Questions are asked:

• Should this child be brought into this terrible world?
• Can the child be cared for financially?
• Can the child be raised to be of benefit to society?
• How will my immediate and long-term plans change?
• Does the child have needs that will require specialized care?

Barriers, not of concrete or steel but of personal ideology and autonomy, are emplaced to impede what should be the only humane outcome. In cold, systematic fashion, risks are weighed against the future value of the person on society. Is there a net gain? If so, the baby is allowed entry; if not, entry is denied. The child is deported to the place from whence it came—its Maker.

Abortion is a disgrace for any nation. Americans legitimized abortion in 1973, and groups like Planned Parenthood have done their best to turn a heinous practice into a flourishing industry protected by the American legal system. Have we gone mad? Apparently so. When referring to abortion as a woman’s right to choose or a healthcare option or having autonomy over one’s body, the individual is acknowledging that there is a separate entity living within. Yes, there is a symbiotic relationship, but this is no parasite or bacteria or virus. This is a baby. And calling him or her a fetus does not help because fetus is Latin for “offspring.” That is still a baby, no matter how one wants to slice and dice rhetoric—or the baby. Abortion is not a necessary violence for the convenience of the woman carrying the child or one that should be mandated (as being attempted in England) because it could potentially be a burden. The children must be accorded the same dignity offered to the immigrant population we so readily seek to protect. Waskom, Texas has boldly declared itself a sanctuary city for the unborn. Good for them! Would that all cities follow suit.