Let’s acknowledge that this is about semantics — as well as the antics of a president who’s inclined to threaten and demean those who disagree with him. In just the past week, the objects of his wrath have included a federal judge in Seattle, UC Berkeley and the prime minister of Australia. That said, we give a thumbs up to the Santa Rosa City Council for standing in support of undocumented immigrants — in defiance of a president determined to rid the country of millions of such individuals. In a resolution passed Tuesday, the council made clear that city officials, including police, “shall not enforce federal civil immigration laws and shall not use city monies, resources or personnel to investigate, question, detect, detain or apprehend persons solely on the basis of a possible violation of immigration law.”
But what does such a city call itself? This was the biggest source of conflict. Many in the audience encouraged the city to follow the lead of San Francisco, Los Angeles and some 40 other communities in California in referring to itself as a sanctuary city. But this would potentially set the city up for retribution from a president who already has threatened to pull federal funding from sanctuary cities. Some council members also said they were concerned that the “sanctuary” label was promising more than the city was offering. So in the end, the council opted to call Santa Rosa an “indivisible” community. It’s an acceptable compromise, one that pays homage to the Pledge of Allegiance no less. But in the end, the difference between a “sanctuary” city and an “indivisible” one appears to be a distinction without, well, a border.
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
