WATCH: Padilla Blasts Republicans’ False Narratives About Sanctuary City Policies

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, slammed Republicans' lies about sanctuary city policies during a Constitution Subcommittee hearing. He denounced Republicans for deflecting from the Trump Administration's failure to adhere to their promise to target the "worst of the worst" individuals, as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and agents indiscriminately sweep up people with no violent criminal history.

Padilla stressed that despite Republicans' claims, sanctuary cities have lower rates of crime, poverty, and unemployment, with higher median household income. He emphasized that these policies do not block the federal government from entering a city or state - they merely affirm that state and local authorities cannot be forced into conducting immigration enforcement. The courts have repeatedly upheld sanctuary policies because the federal government is in charge of immigration enforcement, not cities or states.

"I'd like to call out what this debate really is about. It's not about public safety because the evidence shows communities can be safer. It's not about the law, because courts have upheld sanctuary policies time and again all the way to the Supreme Court. It's clearly about politics and scapegoating," said Senator Padilla. "At a time when Americans are asking us to help make their lives better, and more affordable, by the way, we should be focused on real solutions in that direction, not recycling the same tired, misleading talking points."

Earlier this month, Padilla dismantled Republicans' lies about sanctuary city policies during a Senate Budget Committee hearing. As Republicans try to falsely cast sanctuary cities as lawless, Padilla set the record straight that sanctuary policies simply affirm that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government - not of state and local authorities, who have to focus their often limited resources toward the specific public safety needs of their own communities.

Video of Padilla's remarks at today's hearing is available here.

Remarks as delivered:

I want to thank all the witnesses for coming here today and for participating, particularly Mr. Abraham, for your loss - inexcusable, regardless of who the perpetrator was. I can imagine how heartbreaking it is. So I just wanted you to know that we feel for you, and it takes a lot for you to be here to share your story.

But Mr. Chairman, I know we've heard a lot, not just today, but for days and weeks and months, frankly, years, about the dangers and threats of sanctuary cities. I think my colleagues that may not be as informed about sanctuary cities sometimes choose to describe a city or state as some sort of lawless wasteland where anything goes, and that's either a misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise, of what sanctuary policies are. And I think the American people deserve to know what sanctuary policies are and what they are not.

So, sanctuary policies do not mean that there are no laws or that these communities are areas where anything goes - it's not Mad Max. In fact, as the National Immigration Law Center and others have found, there's a notable decrease in crime overall in cities and states that prioritize welcoming immigrant communities rather than targeting them.

These jurisdictions also report, by the way, higher median household income, less levels of poverty, and lower rates of unemployment. I think these are all positive indicators for communities as a whole - not immune to an occasional tragedy, of course - but by and large, these are positive indicators.

And Mr. Chair, I ask that I'm able to enter into the record studies with these findings by researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, University of Arizona, the University of North Carolina, the American Immigration Council, the Center for American Progress, and the National Immigration Law Center. Thank you very much.

So, sanctuary policies, again, to be clear, also does not mean that the federal government doesn't have the ability to enter into that state or into those cities. All sanctuary policies do is simply affirm that state and or local authorities cannot be co-opted into performing immigration enforcement.

As Professor Vladeck explained in his testimony, that's because immigration is a federal responsibility, and enforcing it is the job of the federal government. Now, I know some state and local jurisdictions choose to cooperate, but they can't be forced into it. That's been upheld by the courts.

So while federal agencies continue to carry out immigration enforcement, state and local law enforcement can choose to focus their time, their energy, and their finite resources on providing for the needs, the safety, and wellbeing of the people living in their communities, as they best determine.

So let me say that again, sanctuary policies do not prevent ICE from going into any state or any city to arrest someone who served time for a violent crime when they're being released from prison, and the federal government is indeed notified of every single individual booked into a jail or a prison.

What we're not discussing today is this Administration's failure to live up to their own claim that they're arresting simply the "worst of the worst." Their own data tells us that the vast majority of the people that have been picked up by ICE and CBP do not have a violent criminal history.

So I wish we were talking about that failure instead of trying to distract from this Administration's failures by going down a sanctuary policy misperception rabbit hole.

My colleagues are free to disagree with these policies. That's the nature of our work here in a democracy, and I know that many of them fundamentally do. But the disagreement doesn't make sanctuary policies unlawful, and it clearly doesn't make our communities less safe, based on the data that researchers have provided.

So I'd like to call out what this debate really is about. It's not about public safety because the evidence shows communities can be safer. It's not about the law, because courts have upheld sanctuary policies time and again all the way to the Supreme Court. It's clearly about politics and scapegoating.

At a time when Americans are asking us to help make their lives better, and more affordable, by the way, we should be focused on real solutions in that direction, not recycling the same tired, misleading talking points.

Sanctuary policies are constitutional, they're practical, and they allow local and state officials to do what they do best: focus their time, their energy, and finite resources on providing for the safety of their communities as they best see fit.

So let's give the American people honesty. Let's end the fearmongering on these false narratives.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

###