You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to myStatesman.com

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.

GREAT REASONS TO SUBSCRIBE TODAY!

  • IN-DEPTH REPORTING
  • INTERACTIVE STORYTELLING
  • NEW TOPICS & COVERAGE
  • ePAPER
X

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks

X

Welcome to myStatesman.com

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on myStatesman.com.

Kusler: Don’t defund sanctuaries that welcome those yearning to be free


Fear is among our strongest motivators and is, at its core, a survival instinct millions of years in the making.

And while fear can indeed provide an awareness essential to survival, it can also be reactionary and crippling.

Consequently, fear-mongering is common in political communication. Just take stock in the rhetoric coming out of the numerous debates and campaign advertisements related to the upcoming presidential election.

One of the most disturbing uses of fear is playing out as candidates and elected officials prey on the reactionary fears that many Americans have about immigrants — particularly immigrants in the country illegally.

The potency of these messages lies within arguably our greatest human fear: the fear of the unknown, which unfortunately often turns into hate.

Donald Trump, for example, has called immigrants murderers and rapists, promised to build a wall around the United States, and called on the country to block the entry of all foreign Muslims. These reactionary rants fan the flames of the fear dominant in how many of us think and act.

Trump is not alone in using tough talk on immigrants to purportedly provide the security followers seek. Seemingly every Republican candidate has a hardline immigration policy that plays on fear.

This tactic is not limited to the presidential campaign trail either. In a recent trip to the Southwest, I took note of the many state-level campaign ads using the same ill-informed, fear-mongering, tough talk on immigrants.

Not to be outdone, fear-peddlers in Washington too have introduced legislation in Congress aimed at eliminating funding for, of all things, law enforcement of state and local governments that have been deemed “sanctuaries” for immigrants.

The congressional effort in fact preys on two fears at once: the fear of immigrants and the fears immigrants themselves have — deportation, the splitting up of families, the decimation of livelihoods and more.

Immigrants are humans, too. For many, whether here through official or unofficial channels, their journey to the United States was born out of a desire for survival and a search for security and hope.

Every waking moment, sleepless nights included, immigrants living illegally in the United States are balancing their thoughts between achieving their dreams and avoiding their worst fears.

So-called sanctuary cities or states are not havens of lawlessness, as opponents would have you believe. These jurisdictions simply do not put the time-consuming business of profiling and immigration status checks at the top of their law enforcement priorities, leaving more time for fighting and preventing more critical criminal matters.

Immigrants living in these jurisdictions illegally are thus provided a tiny bit of breathing room and a chance to put more emphasis on their hopes rather than their fears.

For this humane and frankly prudent criminal justice practice, the merchants of fear in Congress want to strip cities or states of money intended to bolster homeland security activities.

We are not even talking about that much money. The funds in question represent less than half of 1 percent of the overall budgets in the largest jurisdictions. Instead, the whole exercise is nothing more than a legislative version of a Trump rant.

Congress should reject this alarmist approach to governance and focus more on creating opportunity and hope for everyone living in the United States, citizenship status aside.

Kusler is the executive director of Americans for Democratic Action, a liberal advocacy organization.


Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the editor: May 29, 2017
Letters to the editor: May 29, 2017

Re: May 24 article, “Sid Miller calls barbecue deregulation effort ‘horse hockey.’” While some of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller’s public initiatives go against the grain — pushing poisoning of wild hogs is not only environmentally hazardous, but is probably outside his legislative purview — the...
Two Views: How we honor our uncle who gave his life for our freedom
Two Views: How we honor our uncle who gave his life for our freedom

Every year on Memorial Day, my father hung the American flag from the rafters in front of our home in San Bernardino, California. As a young girl, I thought he was just being patriotic. I later understood he was honoring his younger brother, Staff Sgt. Severo Sanchez, who was killed in action in World War II. Today, my family follows in my parents&rsquo...
Two Views: Memorial Day reminds us we must better prepare for next war
Two Views: Memorial Day reminds us we must better prepare for next war

Memorial Day is a day when Americans remember those who died in the service of our country — the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice did so to preserve our security and freedom. We owe them more than periodic remembrances and statements of gratitude; we owe them an unshakeable commitment to ensuring that current and future soldiers...
Opinion: Assault on Guardian reporter is not a gray area

The first question you have to wonder concerning the assault and battery allegedly committed by Montana congressional candidate Greg Gianforte is: How could he possibly have put out a miserable, lying cover story when there were at least four witnesses in the room? The second question is: Do you regret early voting yet? Here’s the account from...
Herman: Straus and Patrick and irreconcilable differences
Herman: Straus and Patrick and irreconcilable differences

Yeah, we kind of knew this political marriage — arranged by the voters of Texas — was destined for trouble. And Friday night, in escalating from what had been mostly behind-closed-doors unpleasantness, it seemed to heat up from possibly reconcilable differences to probably irreconcilable differences. As in some relationships, the flashpoint...
More Stories