One of the most fiercely contested political issues today is the subject of sanctuary cities. Perhaps only the southern border wall is a more heated topic. But that topic is also concerned with the same fundamental issue: the regulation of immigration.

Any fan of history or devotee of old movies will recognize what sanctuary means here. Wanted criminals in medieval times, when seeking to escape arrest, would enter a church, throw themselves upon the altar, and claim protection from arrest. In the old adventure movies, such defendants were always innocent, or at least criminally good like Robin Hood.

This claim of sanctuary is based on what we now call sovereignty. For much of the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church and the German Imperial State disputed who had sovereignty over human affairs. The Empire claimed exclusive control over earthly matters, leaving the Church to manage the arrangements of the next world. But some ambitious Church leaders claimed religious sovereignty over both spheres.

Given the assertion of sanctuary, as long as a criminal didn’t leave the church, he expected to be protected by Church sovereignty even when the church building itself was on Imperial grounds. If this sounds strange, the same thing happens today with embassies. Julian Assange dwells in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Even though he is residing in the midst of sovereign England, he cannot be touched by English law as long as he stays in the embassy. That’s because the sovereignty of that little patch of embassy property is Ecuadorian, not English.

Thus the current American question of city sanctuary for illegal aliens rests on the same issue: sovereignty. Are American cities like foreign embassies in America?

Such cities as San Franscisco were the first political entities in America to offer protection to illegal immigrants. Do American cities have the sovereign power to disregard the federal laws of the United States? No. The cities of America have never had sovereignty of any kind, not even during the colonial period. Therefore the notion of “sanctuary cities” is merely rhetorical and without legal merit. As soon as the federal government asserts its rights to regulate a sovereign matter in those cities, those cities’ religion-like assertions are exposed for what they are: mere political posturing.

But several states, such as California, are now asserting sanctuary rights as well. America’s states, unlike its cities, are in fact sovereign entities. The Unites States is a dual-sovereignty system in which sovereignty is divided between the federal and state governments. The question must now be answered: Which level of American sovereignty — state or federal — controls matters of citizenship and therefore immigrants’ rights?

The answer is simple. In the process of being granted citizenship, a newly sworn-in citizen swears allegiance to the United States of America, not to Pennsylvania or California. No citizen ever swears allegiance to a state in the Union. Any citizen can move freely from one state to another without any permission or citizenship processing, becoming a legal state resident after a short duration of residency. American citizens don’t appear before a state magistrate and swear an oath of allegiance to that state and thereupon receive a certificate of state citizenship to proudly display to relatives!

And that’s the entirety of the issue. Of course, lawyerly details of legality and scholarly quibbles of clauses might be hashed and palavered. But clearly citizenship is a federal and not a state matter. Therefore “sanctuary states” like “sanctuary cities” are words without merit except as obstructionist fantasies. They’re an affront to the rule of law under the Constitution by which the colonial states became bound in the Union which produced the nation state of the United States.

Of course, some states’ rights readers might now cynically assume that Washington always wins in such sovereignty disputes just because it’s bigger. So consider the legalization of marijuana. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the federal government sovereign jurisdiction over recreational drugs, therefore that power is reserved to the states according to the 10th Amendment. As a result, the states have begun to assert their sovereign right on the matter of canabis. And they’re doing so despite the grave displeasure of the federal government. But Washington isn’t now invading Colorado with armed DEA forces to illegally enforce its federal preference. And likewise the cities and states of America shouldn’t attempt to enforce their preferences for illegal immigrant invasions when that matter constitutionally belongs exclusively to Washington.

ROBERT JACQUES

JAMES STUCHELL

Williamsport

Submitted via email