Three Key Questions for Sanctuary Politicians
February 12, 2025
A basic goal of responsible public administration is to make rational decisions with the informed consent of the governed. Unfortunately that’s idealized theory, not real-world immigration politics in which the impulses to expand power and satisfy personal whims are the common determinants. In fact, as political science professor Thomas M. Mongar warned in his influential 1969 article, Personality and Decision-Making, “decisional processes are often reduced solely to the personality dynamics of a chief executive.”
Mongar’s observation was made long before virtue-signaling politicians such as California Governor Gavin Newsom, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, or Boston Mayor Michelle Wu emerged. Yet it speaks volumes about the contemporary proliferation of hundreds of sanctuary policies enacted non-consensually by narcissistic politicians driven by self-interest who continue to defend and double-down on those policies without regard for public opinion.
Thankfully, the day of reckoning and rationality has arrived. The Trump administration has identified sanctuary jurisdictions — some 600 of them — as priorities for immigration enforcement and potential sanctions. This inflection point means that now more than ever, citizens must hold sanctuary-supporting politicians accountable for their actions, expose their underlying motives, support ongoing federal efforts, and most importantly, make themselves heard. To that end, every politician, sheriff and police chief who promotes these policies should be challenged to answer three fundamental questions.
https://www.fairus.org/blog/2025/02/12/three-key-questions-sanctuary-politicians
