Washington, D.C. is not a sanctuary. The nation’s capital is federal territory -- America’s city -- yet D.C.’s politicians (and their liberal enablers in Congress) want to turn it into a safe harbor for illegal aliens, even against the express authority of the Constitution.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s recent order cut through the charade: federalized law enforcement in D.C. will ignore the city’s “sanctuary” policies and cooperate fully with ICE to remove illegal aliens encountered in the course of enforcing the law. That’s how it should be. And that’s elicited more protests in Washington.
D.C.’s leaders cry “home rule” and insist the President must play by their rules. Wrong. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is plain: the “district constituting the seat of government” belongs to the United States -- not to the mayor, not to the D.C. Council. Congress created home rule in 1974, and Congress can revoke it tomorrow. What Congress giveth, Congress can taketh away -- and, historically, has.
Federal law is also plain: you are either lawfully admitted (and, if a nonimmigrant, for a limited time) or you are here illegally. There’s no middle ground: that would be like being “a little bit pregnant.” Crossing the border unlawfully or overstaying a visa is not a “minor paperwork issue.” It is a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Liberals love to say “no one is above the law.” That includes their “neighbors” who are in the country illegally. There’s no “good neighbor” exemption from federal law. There’s certainly not an exemption for foreigners but not citizens. (If there was a “one-law-exemption” for citizens, I’m claiming freedom from the tax code!)
Some states have foolishly declared themselves “sanctuaries,” flirting with nullification in defiance of federal authority. But D.C. is not a state -- it is federal soil. The idea that the capital of the United States can refuse to enforce U.S. law is absurd, dangerous, and constitutionally bankrupt. This is the same logic the South’s nullifiers tried in the 19th century -- and that idea died 160 years ago with the end of the Civil War.
Yes, Congress itself has been derelict in tackling this issue, in large part because Democratic control of at least one house allowed them passively to shield D.C.’s “sanctuary” norms. That’s Congress’ bad -- but even congressional failure does not legitimate ignoring federal law.
Instead of indulging this fantasy of D.C. as a pseudo-state “hosting” the federal government, we should enforce the Constitution’s original vision: America’s city, a capital run for the benefit of the whole nation, under federal law, without apology. Americans have a right to expect the capital to be a model of law and order, not a testing ground for defiance.
And, yes, D.C. is first and foremost “America’s city.” Liberals love “land acknowledgements.” Let’s expect people living in D.C. to acknowledge that they have chosen to live on land the people of the United States that was originally first and foremost entrusted by them to congressional and presidential care and supervision.
Finally, about “sanctuary”: It always struck me as strange that liberals, generally allergic to the presence of religion in public life, have coopted a term from medieval Catholic Europe. “Sanctuary” meant a fugitive fleeing civil justice could take temporary refuge in a church (not a Home Depot parking lot) -- but usually eventually had to leave the realm if unwilling to face civil justice. Sanctuary was never meant to be permanent immunity from the laws of the land. That principle still applies: if you refuse to obey the laws of the realm, you don’t get to stay in the realm.
Image: Public Domain