When Durango City Council passed a resolution in 2004 articulating its position with respect to “non-citizen residents,” the intent was to ensure that the city – and its police department specifically – would not engage in profiling Hispanics in the community, specifically those with undocumented immigration status. That resolution and the conversation that informed and flowed from it ultimately led the city to establish a Community Relations Commission so as to help address and diffuse any tensions between various populations in the community. For both efforts, the intent was clear: that “Durango is and shall remain a place where all persons shall be treated equally and with respect and dignity, regardless of immigration status,” as the 2004 resolution reads. That language, coupled with the nebulous definition of what constitutes a sanctuary city, has landed Durango on a list of such cities – a label that City Manager Ron LeBlanc took sufficient umbrage with as to prompt an attempt at clarifying Durango’s status.
In a resolution LeBlanc wrote and City Council unanimously adopted last month, the city does not quite clrify things – though the resolution’s title is clear enough in its declaration that Durango “is not now nor ever has been a sanctuary city.” The resolution neither revokes the 2004 statement of nondiscrimination, which also vowed that “municipal resources of the city shall not be used to identify, apprehend or deport any non-citizen resident solely on the basis of immigration status,” nor does it disband the Community Relations Commission – in fact, it highlights the commission’s function in carrying out the city’s nondiscriminatory identity.
In practice, the city’s police force largely does not concern itself with the immigration status of those it contacts – for petty crimes, or as witnesses or victims of crimes – but has reported a handful of undocumented immigrants to Immigrations and Customs Enforcement when they have been arrested for more serious offenses. That is striking an appropriate balance between nondiscrimination and public safety.
The conversation, then, comes down to one of labelling. That is largely because there is no accepted definition of the term “sanctuary city,” but it is one that is applied to communities that have, in law or practice, not committed resources to enforcing federal immigration law. By that definition, Durango has and continues to qualify. But as LeBlanc rightly points out, immigration law is just one of many federal statutes that Durango is not particularly concerned with: “We don’t necessarily enforce federal law, period,” LeBlanc said.
Nevertheless, the “sanctuary” label has recently taken on political connotations after an undocumented immigrant Immigrations and Customs Enforcement had been trying to deport – with no cooperation from San Francisco, a self-proclaimed sanctuary city – shot and killed a woman after that city’s police department released the man. In response, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would strip federal funding from any community that calls itself a sanctuary city.
Though LeBlanc says the clarifying resolution is not in response to the House’s action, it is clear that Durango does not want to be branded as a sanctuary city, regardless of the practices. “I don’t know how you can be a sanctuary city if you don’t have an express policy calling yourself a sanctuary city,” LeBlanc said. “It’s not a law, it’s a concept. But when a governing body goes on record saying this concept is not what we are, then I think that’s a policy statement about how we treat people.”
Durango is practicing that balance just right. Call that anything you like, except sanctuary.
