Tortured Logic On Immigration

The New York Times publishes an article about "sanctuary" cities that adopt local ordinances preventing their law enforcement officers from assisting the feds in enforcing immigration laws.  It goes without saying that Congress needs to continue efforts to approve legislation forbidding such ordinances and requiring local law enforcement to at least alert the feds of an individual's status as an illegal.  These cities only risk attracting a flood of immigrants with their policies.  This excerpt from the Times article left me scratching my head, as it simply strains credulity:

Joan Friedland, an immigration lawyer for the National Immigration Law Center, said the concept of sanctuary cities was often misunderstood and that it gave the impression that such cities were lawless havens for illegal immigrants.

“It’s not like people, if they are charged with a crime, they just escape immigration,” Ms. Friedland said. “Even the cities that have ordinances limiting inquiries about immigration status cooperate and are in touch with theDepartment of Homeland Security when a serious crime is involved.”

This is a classic straw man argument, but one I would expect from an open border advocate.  I don't think anyone really believes that sanctuary cities are somehow throw-backs to old west gunfighter towns (or inner-city French neighborhoods being overrun by violent "youths" who happen to be of Muslim extract).  Whether an illegal alien is charged with a "serious" crime is not the issue.  The issue is that the mere presence of an illegal alien in the country constitutes a crime in and of itself.  The immigration lawyer quoted knows this, but instead tries to frame the issue in such a way as to convince people that sanctuary cities are somehow acting responsibly and consistently with federal law -- which does not include an exception for illegal immigration as long as the immigrant doesn't commit a "serious" crime.

If a sanctuary city has to adopt an ordinance to essentially opt out of doing something, it stands to reason that there was a default presumption that it should have been doing something.  In this case, that something involves aiding the feds in enforcing our nation's immigration laws.