Sanctuary City Mayors Unbending in Defending Lawless Policies
By Joe Guzzardi
On March 5, four of the tough-talking big city mayors appeared before the Republican-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. New York’s Eric Adams, Chicago’s Brandon Johnson, Denver’s Mike Johnston and Boston’s Michelle Wu faced probing questions from Committee Chair James Comer and other members about their sanctuary policies which allow inadmissible aliens to seek and receive harbor. Sanctuary cities also block Immigration and Customs Enforcement from carrying out immigration laws.
Comer opened by asking the four if they considered their city “a sanctuary.” Only Adams answered yes. The others deflected. Johnson said Chicago is a “welcoming city,”; Wu, Boston is “a safe city,” and Johnston offered a word salad. Wu repeatedly claimed that Boston is the nation’s safest city, but in the FBI’s newly released 2023 crime data, Boston ranked 16th safest of the nation’s 50 largest cities when measured against total violent crime
The defiant mayors made familiar but misleading talking points to support their unbending sanctuary city status. They maintained that without illegal immigrants their local work force would evaporate, that their “welcoming” posture is consistent with America’s open-arms immigration history. They also insisted that the answer to their problems is “comprehensive immigration reform,” code words for amnesty. Wu leaned heavily on her family’s history as the child of non-English speaking Taiwanese who raised their daughter on Chicago’s Southside. Johnson made repeated efforts to blame Texas Governor Greg Abbott for sending busloads of illegal immigrants to Chicago.
Under direct questioning, Wu did poorly. Missouri’s U.S. Rep. Eric Burlison dug in and asked Wu if there is an “acceptable number” of illegal aliens before she feels the city is overrun. Wu replied that she doesn’t decide who comes into the country or where they go, only how they are treated when they get to Boston. Wu ordered Burlison to do his job and pass legislation, another reference to amnesty. When asked several times to provide hard figures for the taxpayer expense to care for illegal aliens, Wu couldn’t provide a number. She said no cost data is available because Boston doesn’t inquire about immigration status. Neither Wu nor Chicago’s Johnson would explicitly answer Comer’s question about whether they would turn over illegal immigrant criminals to ICE.
Johnson drew Republican lawmakers’ ire for limiting his cost estimate at roughly 1 percent of his city’s budget while Denver’s and New York City’s Johnston and Adams provided concrete numbers at $79 million over the past two years and $6.9 billion, respectively. Wu was hammered for saying Boston doesn’t keep track. “You don’t ask how much money the city of Boston has spent on illegal immigration — are you out of your mind? Do you manage your budget?” asked Florida U.S. Rep. Byron Donalds. She does not, as evidenced by her hiring of a legal team to coach her, the Washington D.C. law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel, which charges $950 an hour, according to the Boston Herald. In all, Wu spent $650,000 on legal fees and to transport eight staffers and her one-month-old infant to the hearing.
Adams came under intense fire from his fellow Democrats for his alleged deal making with the Trump administration. New York Democrats Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez and Laura Gillen along with California’s Robert Garcia demanded that Adams resign for his purported quid-pro-quo deal to cooperate with ICE in exchange for DOJ ordering federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the mayor. Adams vigorously denied any type of deal.
The Cato Institute’s David Bier, the minority witness, was on hand to give the pro-mayor, pro-sanctuary city testifiers a helping hand. Bier presented only the positive side of the sanctuary city debate—illegal aliens pay taxes but no mention of the services they consume, states have limited power to cooperate with the federal government, but no citation of the Supremacy Clause, Congress should follow the guidelines recommended by the Major City Chiefs Association, not those that National Border Patrol Council established, etc.
After six hours of contentious testimony, the next step is in the administration’s hands. AG Bondi has sued Chicago, Illinois and New York State for their sanctuary policies. Bondi called Wu “an insult to law enforcement,” and promised to intensify her efforts in Boston. Before the hearing, Wu sent condolences to Lemark Jaramillo’s family; police identified Jaramillo as the perpetrator who attempted to stab Chick-fil-A patrons and was then shot to death by an off-duty police officer.
After the hearing ended, Florida’s Anna Paulina Luna wrote on X, “I just referred the sanctuary city mayors to the Department of Justice for CRIMINAL investigations based on evidence from their own comments and policies, proving that they were breaking federal law.” Four other Republicans indicated that they too would file charges against the insolent mayors. Criminal charges, along withholding federal funds from the rebellious mayors’ cities, is the best way to end the illegal sanctuary city quagmire. The law is clear: Title 8, U.S. Code § 1324 is a federal law that makes it illegal to bring in and harbor illegal aliens and prohibits the unlawful employment of aliens.
Joe Guzzardi is an Institute for Sound Public Policy analyst. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org
Sanctuary City Mayors Unbending in Defending Lawless Policies