Eagle’s ‘nonsanctuary city’ resolution is a solution in search of a problem | Opinion

The city of Eagle’s decision to declare itself a nonsanctuary city is a political solution without a problem.

Even by the city spokesperson’s own words, the declaration is an empty one chasing after a bogeyman — a bogeyman based on what appears to be a false assumption.

According to the resolution , Eagle residents had expressed concern over the supposed transport of immigrants into Idaho and Ada County which “compromise the safety, well-being and resources of the city residents.”

Which residents had expressed concern? How many residents?

What resources would be compromised?

When asked, Eagle’s spokesperson said she “wasn’t aware of any current city programs that used taxpayer dollars for such services.”

So why the need for the resolution?

The Eagle city spokesperson said that there is no problem now, but they’re looking to the future.

Also concerning is the fact that this resolution was passed on the consent calendar, which means it was done without serious discussion.

First, something so significant deserves some debate and discussion. Without such a discussion in an open meeting, it makes us think that there’s a possibility of an illegal serial meeting, in which council members discuss a matter “offline,” outside the public view. How else could they have come to unanimous agreement to pass it?

This is no way to conduct the public’s business. If a public body is going to pass a resolution of such importance, city council members are obligated to their constituents to state their reasoning to the public.

Even when an Idaho Statesman reporter sought comment from Mayor Brad Pike, he refused to return his call to explain his position.

That’s pretty cowardly, in our book.

What exactly does it mean for Eagle, one of the wealthiest cities in Idaho, to be a “nonsanctuary city”? Is the resolution sending some sort of implicit message? Is it a move to codify Eagle as an elitist enclave?

As Idaho Statesman reporter Nick Rosenberger pointed out in his reporting, there are no statistically discernible differences in violent crime, rape or property crime rates across cities that adopt the sanctuary city status; 86% of people without permanent legal status have jobs, compared with 74% nationally; and workers without permanent status paid millions in sales, property and income taxes.

If there’s anything positive, Eagle’s resolution offers yet another reminder of the need for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a more vigorous guest worker program in the United States.

The U.S. Senate was close to passing meaningful immigration legislation earlier this year, but former President Donald Trump got his Republican friends in the Senate to kill the bill out of fear that it would hand President Joe Biden a victory in this election year.

The United States has a serious labor shortage right now, to the tune of about 2 million more jobs than unemployed workers.

Anyone complaining about “Bidenflation” needs to take a look at the need to bring more workers into the country to fill that labor shortage.

We will also point out that many immigrants seeking asylum in the United States are here because of political unrest in their home countries, conditions created, in part, by U.S. foreign policies. One could argue that it’s incumbent upon the U.S. to provide sanctuary to those fleeing political violence.

In the end, Eagle’s resolution has little effect and is rooted in unfounded fears and concerns without any evidence other than some vague future threat.

Those are bad foundations upon which to lay government policy. And without public discussion or disclosure, it’s just plain bad government.

Statesman editorials are the unsigned opinion of the Idaho Statesman’s editorial board. Board members are opinion editor Scott McIntosh, opinion writer Bryan Clark, editor Chadd Cripe, newsroom editors Dana Oland and Jim Keyser and community members Greg Lanting, Terri Schorzman and Garry Wenske.