Houston's sanctuary policy is not confusing
The Chronicle ran a story by Alexis Grant and Matt Stiles on Friday that attempted to assess the notion that Houston is a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants (I think). It's an unusual story in that it's one of the clunkier pieces of writing that's ever appeared with Matt Stiles' name attached (maybe the crack Chron editing team is to blame), although it does present two sides of the semantic debate over the "sanctuary city" designation.
Here's the lede:
The phrase "sanctuary city" does more than rally anti-illegal immigration activists and make city officials cringe — it causes confusion.
Oh come on. The phrase isn't confusing. The term is used in the immigration debate to denote a city that adopts policies intended to shield illegal immigrants from municipal enforcement of immigration laws. The policies usually involve prohibitions on inquiries into immigration status. This is not confusing.
The story continues:
The Houston Police Department for more than a decade have followed a policy that forbids them from asking people they encounter about their immigration status. But does that make Houston a "sanctuary city?"
Yes.
Members of the group [Protect our Citizens] say the policy protects illegal immigrants to the point that it qualifies Houston as a "sanctuary city."
A report by the Congressional Research Service reached the same conclusion.
HPD officers are forbidden from inquiring as to immigration status. The Congressional Research Service is right to refer to Houston as a "sanctuary city."
Mayor White disagrees:
''Houston is not a sanctuary city," said Mayor Bill White. "The biggest concern on something like this is somebody trying to confuse the voters."
The term is used most often by those who oppose the Houston policy and similar ones in other locales.
Mayor White offers no reason that Houston is not a sanctuary city. He just asserts it, and then changes the subject (to people misleading voters).
And then Alexis Grant and Matt Stiles immediately follow by offering editorial commentary on who uses the term.
Here are a couple of questions: Does it really matter who uses the term if it's accurate? And is the Congressional Research Service usually swayed so easily by political activists deploying demagogic rhetoric (the point that seems to be implied by the story's editorializing)?
If Houston's Mayor and other elected officials think the 1992 sanctuary directive is a good idea, then they ought to be willing to engage in a public debate over it, and put it to a vote on Council instead of hiding behind an order issued by a long-gone former police chief and complaining about a petition group. Indeed, if the Mayor and Council would take the lead on this matter, rescind the current policy, and engage in a debate on what should replace it (if anything), a petition would be completely unneccessary. That shouldn't even be too confusing for the journalists assigned to the issue!
BLOGVERSATION: Cigars, donuts, and Coffee.
Posted by Kevin Whited @ 06/25/06 12:22 AM | Print |
Previous Entry | Home | Next Entry
ADVERTISING
DISCLAIMER
All content © 2004-09, blogHOUSTON and the respective authors.
blogHOUSTON.net is powered by Nucleus.
Site design and Nucleus customization are by Kevin Whited.