NC Senate passes legislation to ban ‘Sanctuary Cities’

Here is a press release that was sent out by the NC Senate this morning on sanctuary cities.

A bill tentatively passed by the North Carolina Senate on Thursday would ban N.C. localities from acting as ‘sanctuary cities’ that ignore federal laws against illegal immigration.
 
Earlier this year, national news outlets reported that the suspected murderer of a California woman was in the U.S. illegally and could have been deported, but instead was given safe harbor by a so-called ‘sanctuary city’ refusing to enforce immigration laws. And in North Carolina, a number of local governments have adopted resolutions similar to those of other ‘sanctuary cities’ across the country.
 
In response, the Senate legislation would prevent counties and cities statewide from enacting local ordinances that violate or fail to enforce federal immigration laws. It would also prohibit local policies forbidding law enforcement from asking about the immigration status of those they arrest or detain or sharing that information with federal authorities.
 
“It’s just plain common sense that cities and counties ought to be enforcing federal immigration laws and not harboring illegal aliens at the potential expense of their own citizens’ safety. It’s sad that we have to pass a law to make localities follow the law,” said Sen. Norman Sanderson (R-Pamlico), an author of the Senate legislation.
 
The bill would also:
 
·         Require that state and local governments follow the same rules as the private sector and only hire government contractors who comply with state and federal E-Verify laws, as proposed by the N.C. House;
·         Make clear that matricula consular documents issued by foreign embassies may not be used to determine a person’s identity or residency, as proposed by the House; and
·         Ensure North Carolina conforms to federal work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults who receive food stamps.

Sarah Curry

Sarah Curry is Director of Fiscal Policy Studies at the John Locke Foundation.

Reader Comments