CITLALLY MACIEL
<Staff Writer>
On February 20, 2013, a motion was carried to declare Toronto a “Sanctuary City.” This motion was introduced by Councilor Joe Mihevc (who happens to be the Councilor of my very own ward) with the objective of asserting City Council’s commitment “to ensuring access to services without fear to immigrants without full status or without full status documents.” Accordingly, this motion will have the effect of giving individuals access to government services without being questioned about their immigration status in Canada.
The motion was introduced partly in response to a number of reports indicating that the lack of access to government services has left undocumented individuals extremely vulnerable and with no support. The motion makes reference to the fact that, given the kinds of occupations in which undocumented workers engage (agriculture, construction, hospitality and manufacturing), they often work under unsafe conditions, receiving low wages, and are often victims of unfair dismissal and abuse.
Moreover, according to a report created jointly by Toronto Public Health and Access Alliance Multicultural Health and Community Services, although newcomers are healthier overall than Canadian-born residents, research shows that the health of newcomers tends to deteriorate as time passes (due to varied factors) and that this situation is worsened by the fact that newcomers are sometimes unable to access health care services. Consequently, this may lead to more serious health problems that will translate into increased future costs to the health care system. In addition to their physical health, undocumented workers are also exposed to a high risk of developing metal illnesses such as depression and anxiety.
Like most things political, the motion has been received with mixed feelings. Supporters of the motion argue that society must actively protect vulnerable individuals. In addition, others argue that, when it comes to health care at least, it is best and more economical to ensure that members of our society (including undocumented individuals) remain healthy. Yet, there are others who oppose this measure, arguing that our society should not bear the costs associated with the safeguarding of undocumented individuals. Indeed, this is a complex situation that involves issues regarding immigration laws, humanitarian responsibilities, financial burdens and duties, human and civil rights, and politics. However, this situation is hardly novel. The notion of sanctuary cities has been around since Greek and Roman times. Immigration policies and issues have been, for decades, constantly adjusting and creating polemic due to the movement of masses created by the wars and decolonization process of the last century.
In her article, “The Natural-Law Claim to the Right to Sanctuary,” Amy E. Hoyt describes the roots of sanctuary cities. According to Hoyt, the practice of providing sanctuary existed in Ancient Greece and Rome and has continued until now, especially through the Catholic Church. Churches, as early as 313 AD, would provide temporary asylum to fugitives who were being persecuted. By the fifteenth century, the notion of providing sanctuary was adopted by whole towns, creating an ancient version of what is now known as a sanctuary city.
In modern times, the idea of providing sanctuary gained special momentum in the United States in 1981. As a result of the coup in El Salvador in October of 1979, and the ensuing violence, Salvadorians left their country and sought refuge in the United States. When the US Government denied these refugee claims, many churches, cities, and organizations assisted these individuals to settle and it was during this time that many sanctuary cities in the US were created.
Not surprisingly, sanctuary cities have created controversy in the United States; and the concept has been looked at from many angles. Amy Hoyt explains that religious institutions justify their sanctuary practices by claiming “both the ancient tradition of asylum and the precepts of the Bible support their efforts to help Central American refugees.” Hoyt also makes reference to Hugo Grotius’ argument (considered the founder of international law) that that the right to sanctuary is derived from natural law because individuals have both the right to self-preservation and basic necessities, and the right to free movement. He stated that as long as refugees were not disruptive and obeyed the law, permanent residence should not be denied to them. Finally, Hoyt argues that the right to sanctuary is supported by international human rights documents such as the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The Charter declares rights to personal security and sovereignty; and the UDHR declares the right to personal freedom and security, the right to freedom from torture, and the right to freedom of movement.
Another angle is whether the declaration of a city as a sanctuary and the policies that this declaration creates are unconstitutional (i.e. the policies disregard federal immigration laws) or just antagonistic to national policies. Rose Cuison Villazor, in her article “Sanctuary cities and local citizenship” makes a similar claim in relation to the particular situation experienced in San Francisco. The City of San Francisco joined the group of sanctuary cities in 1985. On October 24, 1989, the city passed an ordinance that removed the City from federal immigration enforcement, by ordering “no department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law…” The law was then amended in 1992 to exempt from protection those non-citizens convicted of certain crimes. Nonetheless, Villazor argues that the City’s ordinance prevents police officers from keeping the public safe and uses the case of the Bologna family’s lawsuit to illustrate this point. In 2008, Anthony Bologna and his three sons were driving when an individual pulled up beside their car and began shooting at them. Only one of the sons survived. The accused shooter was allegedly a member of a dangerous gang and was living illegally in the United States. The surviving family members brought a lawsuit against the City of San Francisco, claiming that the city’s ordinance actually protected individuals known to have committed crimes. This claim was based on the fact that the accused had been subject of criminal proceedings in the past and that if this had been reported to the immigration authorities, he would have been deported and the shooting would have never happened.
Is declaring Toronto a sanctuary city a good thing? City Council made an informed decision that resulted from the recommendations made by multiple professionals and government officials, in addition to the persuasive work conducted by organizations such as No One Is Illegal. Whether this is a good thing certainly depends on the way one chooses to look at it. But even the most cynical of critics can make an affirmative conclusion.