I was invited on CBC Radio One this morning to discuss the proposal to declare Vancouver a ’sanctuary city’. Since there is no universal legal definition of a sanctuary city, the Vancouver proposal is to ensure access to city services to all people and to not refer those without documentation to the Canada Border Services Agency. I have written extensively on internal immigration enforcement and fear among immigrant communities in the United States, so the sentiment behind sanctuary cities is one that is deeply close to my heart, but there are some key differences in Vancouver, as well as larger legal challenges, that make the declaration a bit weaker than those of us who care about immigrant communities would like.

Toronto and Hamilton have already become sanctuary cities within the last year, no doubt fuelling some of the discussion here. But there are some major differences between Vancouver and Toronto that would change how effective a ’sanctuary city’ approach could be:

1. Toronto is both more densely populated and the City Council has jurisdiction (now) over a wide expanse of suburban and lower-rent areas. This means not only are there more places for lower-income individuals–some of whom may be without documentation–but there are also plenty of jobs within the city without leaving the sanctuary. Growth trends in the Lower Mainland suggest a different pattern, with immigrant communities settling South of the Fraser–areas that are not mulling a ’sanctuary’ designation.
2. The City of Vancouver contains no common ports of entry. Yes, there is the Port Metro Vancouver system, but most entries to Canada in the region occur at YVR in Richmond and land crossings South of the Fraser. Without those cities stepping up to develop a sanctuary region approach, the places where migrants enter will still be working against this ’sanctuary’ policy.
3. The City of Vancouver is a rather lean municipal government with a similarly small police force. While I agree that the Vancouver Police Department should not be in the business of making CBSA deportation referrals out of jaywalking tickets, I would question how often that is actually occurring to begin with.
4. The City of Vancouver has limited (at best) jurisdiction over the transit services within its’ city and those services are policed by the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police. Transit Police have jurisdiction over all TransLink installations and property–wherever it is. Farejumping in East Vancouver, panhandling in Fairview fall within Transit Police, not City of Vancouver authority. The Transit Police’s right to extend their jurisdiction beyond transit has been held up in court as well–such as in cases where police are in ‘hot pursuit’. So in the ultimate irony, it is quite conceivable to imagine a case of a Transit Police officer following a suspect out of a Canada Line station at Broadway & Cambie and making the arrest two blocks up the street at Vancouver City Hall.
5. Given that transit is beyond the scope of the city and driver licensing is provincially managed, the sanctuary city designation does little to address concerns about immigrant safety in getting to and from work, school, hospitals, or home.

More broadly, the sanctuary city concept is a step in the right direction, but, given what most cities can do, not enough to help those who need our support:

1. Access to employment remains difficult. In the US, the Department of Homeland Security has launched legal challenges to cities that block the federal use of E-Verify, a database that checks immigration status of newly hired employees. In Canada, finding a job without or with an expired SIN could be challenging, or off the books. We should be worried about what sorts of legal, social, and ethical abuses may occur when individuals are forced to take work outside of the labour market. (Are they being paid a fair wage? Educated and aware of their rights?)
2. Access to housing is still very challenging. In Vancouver, rental contracts are administered privately, governed by the provincial Residential Tenancy Branch. Most US cities actually handle rental contracts at the municipal level–Chicago, another sanctuary city for instance–so getting rental housing might be easier. But as long as credit checks are permissible, housing can be challenging.
3. Cities can do a lot around accessing elementary and secondary education, but it’s a lot tougher to provide safe spaces on post-secondary campuses. Just because its hard doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done–we need to educate and train young people to take on a range of new jobs our economies are demanding. If we do not work to make programs like the DREAM Act possible, we provide sanctuary but keep newcomers living with less opportunity.

One of the big challenges to sanctuary cities will come from the left, not the right. Sure, the right will argue this isn’t fair–or worse, that they have broken the law. Firstly, the conflation of immigrants to criminals is wrong-headed and simply not correct. Immigration law is administrative, not criminal. Decisions on status are not criminal regardless of how one entered the country. Powerful rhetoric from the federal government has been effective at seeing refugee applicants as ‘cutting the line’ for our ‘gold-plated health care’. It’s divisive talk. Ultimately, as I’ve pointed out here, immigrants–in Vancouver or elsewhere–will continue to live in fear and anxiety as they travel, negotiate public services, and attempt to assimilate to Canadian life. Promising not to begin deportation proceedings for the handful that will make use of parks, libraries, police/victim services, and only the most basic of healthcare (MSP still being a provincial matter) is hardly making life easy for immigrants. The fairness argument holds no water.

But sanctuary cities may have limited shelf life in the US at least. When Arizona proposed sweeping immigration reform promising the toughest and most pernicious policies in the US–SB 1070–the bill was defeated by a conservative Supreme Court. Liberal scholars and activists cheered the decision in Arizona v. United States for asserting only the federal government can make immigration policy. By that token, immigration laws like ’sanctuary cities’ that contravene federal policy could easily find themselves up for a court challenge.

Still, it doesn’t seem like anyone realistically would want the ’sanctuary city’ model to be a longterm solution, but rather a means toward applying political pressure to make meaningful (federal) change. Given the small amount of legal tools the City of Vancouver can make use of, the designation carries very little weight, and while I appreciate the sentiment, I do read it cynically as well, as an election year platitude that costs Mayor Robertson and the Vision caucus little socially or economically.