Joseph A. Curro Jr., chairman of the Board of Selectmen, presented the following commentary supporting Article 59 (‘Sanctuary’ resolution) to the May 8, 2017, session of the annual Town Meeting:
Mr. Moderator… Fellow Town Meeting members…
So, here we are… at the final chapter of the 2017 Annual Town Meeting. We take up the article that has received by far the most attention and debate of any on our warrant this year.
The Board of Selectmen was proud to co-sponsor this article with the Human Rights Commission, and we recognize the efforts of private individuals to bring similar measures to our attention. We appreciate the work that the Town Manager and his staff put into the analysis of this proposal, especially the efforts of Town Counsel Doug Heim, who brought to bear extensive research and his years of professional experience representing the NYPD.
Throughout the winter and spring, we have received hundreds of emails, cards, letters, and calls on this issue, and our hearing on this article drew nearly 400 people to this hall. We heard from both sides, but the overwhelming sentiment has been in support of favorable action. Accordingly, the recommended vote before you was adopted unanimously by this board.
Why no ‘Sanctuary Town’
As it appears in the warrant, this article uses the term, “Sanctuary Town,” and it has been popularly referred to in this manner. I wish to note, however, that in our recommended language, the word “sanctuary” does not appear at all. This is intentional.
Firstly, there is no consistent legal definition of a “sanctuary city” or “sanctuary town.” Secondly, it is important that we distinguish what we are discussing from the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980s, whereby faith communities provided material support and shelter to Central American refugees. We propose that the Town do no such thing.
The nonbinding resolution before you is modest in scope. It is an affirmation by this body of principles of fairness to be extended to all of our residents and others who come into contact with our public institutions, regardless of immigration status, ethnicity, or religion.
This resolution supports existing practices of the Arlington Police Department and represents a strong statement in support of Federalism… In The Federalist No. 46, James Madison wrote, “The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes.” When extending this principle to our debate this evening, it is plain that our local police department is no more equipped or positioned to carry out the duties of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement than is our Town Treasurer and Collector of Taxes to administer the rules and functions of the Internal Revenue Service.
We have spent much of this year’s Town Meeting debating local acceptance measures, whereby the Commonwealth gives municipalities the option to implement specific laws to assist in the governance of our own affairs. Is it too much to ask that the Federal government extend similar courtesy?
No request to break law
This resolution does not ask our police department or any other public official to break the law. Instead, it applauds our public safety officials for the work that they already do to protect our community from violent crime and to administer justice in a fair and impartial manner. No obstacles to that important mission are suggested. The resolution also applauds current practices that shield Arlington from legal liability — not only on the basis of ethnic and religious discrimination — but also in protecting habeas corpus rights by avoiding unlawful detentions.
Some have suggested that this resolution is unneeded, a symbolic action, mere words … But, if words and symbols contained no meaning, we would not stand and face the Flag at the beginning of each session and sing the words of our National Anthem. When our voices join as one in the final crescendo saluting, “the land of the free and the home of the brave,” we publicly remind ourselves and our constituents why we are here and what draws us together.
Recent articles in The Boston Globe and New York Times describe how many victims of domestic violence and sexual assault — both documented and undocumented immigrants and refugees — have increasingly avoided seeking help or filing restraining orders. The Times writes that, “[t]he number of Latinos reporting rapes in Houston has fallen by more than 40 percent this year from the same period last year.” In Los Angeles, this population has registered a 10% drop in domestic violence reports and a 25% decline in sexual assault claims, a development that the police chief attributes to, “fear of the federal government.”
The Globe cites similar stories from officials at Boston Medical Center and other Massachusetts organizations that assist survivors of domestic violence.
While we know that there should be nothing to fear for such victims in the Town of Arlington, we need to amplify that message. This evening, we have an opportunity to state our position loud and clear, so that impacted members of our community hear it.
As one of my favorite Arlingtonians, Elaine Shea, frequently reminds us, “We all need to be Upstanders!”
Lose federal funds?
One of the most common objections to the resolution before us has been based on the fear of losing federal financial support. Despite proclamations of the Administration in Washington to the contrary, these fears have been overstated.
There is ample case law striking down the legality of coercing state and local authorities into adopting and administering specific policies as a condition of funding when there is no direct connection between the funding program and the policy in question. Arlington receives no federal assistance for immigration enforcement, and — accordingly — our risk exposure approaches zero. This reading of the law was only strengthened with last month’s ruling in a case brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara County.
Now, many of our federal funds are at risk, but for reasons having nothing to do with this resolution.
Our School Committee reported to this Town Meeting an expected drop in Title I grant funding, which serves school populations with high numbers of students from low-income families. This reduced funding is a result of our shifting income eligibility. Nothing we do here changes that fact.
Earlier this evening, we voted to endorse a plan for the use of Community Development Block Grant funding. If recommendations of the President’s so-called “skinny budget” are adopted, the CDBG program will disappear for all communities, regardless of “sanctuary” status.
This past weekend, there were multiple reports of the proposed elimination of the Drug Free Communities program. We receive a DFC grant. It supports the Arlington Youth Health and Safety Coalition and important initiatives of our police department and others, including our successful prescription drug take-back program — which helps tackle the opioid epidemic — and our compliance checks of liquor stores and restaurants to prevent alcohol sales to minors. Like proposed CDBG cuts, elimination of Federal funding for youth substance abuse prevention is also an “equal opportunity” withdrawal of support from Washington to municipalities across the nation.
Aid to NYC, first family
I realize that for some, legal arguments and evidence of our shrinking exposure to discriminatory federal cutbacks may not be sufficient. I submit that it is reasonable to think that perhaps — just perhaps — threats against sanctuary jurisdictions have been overstated. As Exhibit A, we can look to this past weekend’s federal budget deal, which provided $25.7 million to New York City — the largest sanctuary city in the nation — as reimbursement for providing security to the first family.
Like it or not, we are taking part in a much broader national debate.
In an op-ed that was published this morning, U.S. Senator John McCain wrote:
“Human rights exist above the state and beyond history. They cannot be rescinded by one government any more than they can be granted by another. They inhabit the human heart, and from there, though they may be abridged, they can never be extinguished.”
At the end of the day, Town Meeting is being asked to express an opinion … An opinion in support of fair and impartial treatment of all the individuals whom we serve. We are being asked to uphold current community policing practices and to honor our men and women in blue.
It is unconscionable that this Town Meeting might succumb to an empty threat of economic sanctions and decline to register our opinion, in the face of the chilling effect of legally specious executive orders. The Constitution supports us, and we must stand for what is right.
The Board of Selectmen — respectfully, unanimously, and enthusiastically — requests your support of the recommended vote. Thank you.
This viewpoint was published Wednesday, May 10, 2017.
DO YOU AGREE, DISAGREE? Comment below. You must include your full name as well as your connection to Arlington, Mass.
Joseph A. Curro Jr.,
Thank you for supporting the Trust Act in your capabilities as chairman of the Board of Selectpeople.
Your arguments in favor of adopting the warrant article were well-reasoned and comprehensive.
While being a passionate speaker, as demonstrated in your exemplary speech during the Board of Selectpeople’s vote on this measure, you do not let your emotions get in the way of a clear-sighted examination of the facts at hand.
This allowed you to provide support to the warrant article in a manner which bolstered the voters present.
When we let our emotions [fear, anger] obstruct our respect of considered government, of our people, of what is right, and of what is achievable, we do not honor our oath: as citizens or as elected representatives.
Thank you.