Lancaster City lies in the heart of Lancaster County. On a voting map, the city is a spot of left-leaning blue in a sea of right-leaning red that makes up the rest of the county. An all Democrat city board unanimously passed an ordinance in February, 2024 codifying sanctuary city status for Lancaster City, which had been based on policies that had been in place in the city since 2019. Efforts from pro-illegal immigrant groups from across the state have supported Lancaster City codifying its sanctuary city status to ensure that illegal-immigrants currently residing in the city would not face deportation if they reported crimes.
Groups like CASA have gone so far as to propose measures such as The Lancaster City Trust Act. The Trust Act was assumed to do the following three things, if enacted: 1) prevent local law enforcement from working with ICE; 2) allow the acceptance of IDs issued by foreign governments or non-profit organizations; and 3) ensure illegal-immigrants can report crimes without their immigration status being revealed (the irony of an individual breaking the law to enter the country being able to report on other law breakers without being held to account for their own law breaking seemed lost on the organization).
In the same month that the Lancaster City Council passed the sanctuary city ordinance, Mayor Eric Adams of New York City was in the process of rescinding NYC’s sanctuary city status. With $2 billion of the city’s resources allocated to the stream of illegal immigrants arriving daily, NYC “was just not equipped to handle the numbers of people.” Police officers were beaten outside of migrant shelters in Times Square, 750 National Guardsmen were stationed in NYC’s subways, and, all the while, convictions have dropped, charges have been downgraded and criminals released back into the streets. Chicago, too, has been experiencing the brunt of Biden’s border policies (or lack thereof) having allocated $160 million of the city’s resources to care for illegal immigrants. These large case studies of sanctuary cities apparently played no role in Lancaster City’s ordinance, as it was passed during the same period NYC and Chicago began, once again, addressing their illegal immigration problems.
Resistance to Lancaster City’s sanctuary city status from the citizens in the surrounding county was heavy. It was with that in mind that the Lancaster County Commissioner’s Office stepped up with Resolution 33-2024: Declaring Lancaster County a Non-Sanctuary County. Introduced by Commissioner Ray D’Agostino and supported by Commissioner Josh Parsons, the resolution would ensure that Lancaster County would continue to enforce existing immigration laws, work with ICE officials and ensure the safety of the legal residents of the county. Public comments were opened on the 19th and 20th of March, 2024. The public comments which occurred on March 20 will be discussed in more detail here.
The Lancaster County Commissioner’s Office was filled to the brim with concerned citizens of both political affiliations. The political split in the room could be easily differentiated, detractors of Resolution 33-2024 tended to be brightly colored – much like a peacock or poison-dart frog, or masked. Those in favor of the resolution seemed to exude business casual. There were no time limits for each speaker, but each was requested to respect the fact that there would be many.
Those against the resolution often cited a pseudo-morality that seemed to be unconnected from a theology. They characterized the resolution as unwelcoming (I later asked my wife, who is a legal immigrant, whether she felt “unwelcomed” by the vote. She did not), or those in support as fear-mongerers, race-baiters, unscientific, emotional and hateful. They attempted to read passages from the Bible out of context in an effort to appeal to Christian sensibilities, but their lack of theology was apparent through their attempts. The Lancaster City Homeless Union attempted to align their cause with that of illegal immigrants, producing a larger coalition of what Karl Marx or Herbert Marcuse would call the lumpenproletariat. Ultimately, they blamed both their homelessness and the resistance to illegal immigrants on the “ruling class.”
They emphasized that no one could be legal in the United States as it was a nation formed on stolen ground, whose borders ever-expanded through manifest destiny. A nation founded on theft, blood and racism was no nation they could support, yet they still encouraged illegal immigration to the same country they just decried. Many of the arguments were based on neo-Marxist principles of “false consciousness”, and to engage in a civil dialogue over illegal immigration with supporters of such a resolution would simply serve to protect “the already established machinery of discrimination.”
Supporters of the resolution, quite often, read from prepared notes, relied on the founding documents and overwhelming supported immigration (through legal means). Following their comments, they were met with calls of “shame, shame” from detractors. Comments from detractors could be heard throughout the speeches of supporters used, in a way, to undermine their position. One woman had spent time on the border and assisted illegal immigrants medically. She emphasized, for some of those she encountered, the rape and torture at the hands of the cartels. Another welcomed the thousands of legal immigrants he both employed on his farm and met through his many years in Lancaster County. Still more questioned the lack of a vetting process that would allow criminals to operate with impunity within the United States.
In the end, the county commissioners voted 2-1 in favor of making Lancaster County a non-sanctuary county. This vote, in a small district in rural Pennsylvania, is a great example of how communities can act on a local level to make up for the Biden Administration’s failed border policies. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding Texas’s Senate Bill 4 that allowed Texan authorities the right to arrest and detain those who have entered the United States illegally materially aligns with Lancaster County’s decision to be a non-sanctuary county. Enforcing existing laws, such as 8 U.S.C. § 1325, is something states and local authorities are legally able to do. Ensuring that Lancaster County is a non-sanctuary county also ensured that federal laws can be carried out, and negated the actions of the Lancaster City council. Addressing illegal immigration at a local level, utilizing existing federal laws, is something that must be undertaken when the current Administration is failing in its duty to enforce federal law.
Hunter J. McBryde, Lancaster
