Pittsburgh politicians say they’re open to ‘sanctuary city’ status |

Pittsburgh politicians say they’re open to ‘sanctuary city’ status

Bob Bauder
Bob Bauder | Tribune-Review
Gregory Godels of Point Breeze urges Pittsburgh City Council during a public hearing to create 'sanctuary city' legislation. Gisela organized a petition drive to hold the hearing.
Bob Bauder | Tribune-Review
D'Addario Khwaja of Shadyside addresses Pittsburgh City Council during a public hearing suggesting the city pass 'beacon city' as opposed to 'sanctuary city' legislation.
Bob Bauder | Tribune-Review
Members of the Spanish-speaking organization United Force in Resistance of Immigrants in Action brought their children to a public hearing before Pittsburgh City Council where speakers urged officials to make Pittsburgh a 'sanctuary city.'

Dozens of Pittsburghers on Wednesday recounted stories of immigrants living in fear of deportation and urged Pittsburgh City Council to pass “sanctuary city” legislation that would prohibit police from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

Some spoke Spanish to council members, who were aided by an interpreter during a packed public hearing in the City-County Building, Downtown. Mothers who are members of the advocacy group United Force in Resistance of Immigrants in Action brought children with them to the hearing — allowing the little ones to watch from seats along the walls.

Gregory Godels, 70, of Point Breeze, who advocated for the hearing, said Pittsburgh needs legislation to protect immigrants and their children.

“You got to remember … that when you have an organization like ICE that comes into a community and does these sweeps and harasses people, it destroys the life of that whole community,” Godels said.

There is no hard definition for what makes a sanctuary city. The term generally refers to a city that adopts policy limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Pittsburgh’s “unbiased policing” policy prohibits officers from asking residents about immigration status, but permits them to assist federal agencies in tracking down immigrants wanted on criminal warrants.

Speakers praised the city for adopting the policy and legislation that helps immigrants access city services, but said it isn’t enough.

“What we’re looking for is legislation that goes further,” Godels said.

Mayor Bill Peduto in March reaffirmed the city’s commitment to welcoming immigrants in wake of President Trump’s increased emphasis on tracking down immigrants who are in the country illegally.

The Pennsylvania House and Senate have passed bills that would cut state subsidies for counties and municipalities that refuse to detain immigrants for federal authorities. Trump has also threatened financial penalties for refusing to cooperate with ICE.

Speakers said threats of deportation make immigrants reluctant to report crime or call for emergency medical help. They discounted reports of criminal behavior among illegal immigrants, saying most are hard-working people seeking safe harbor.

“Decades of research confirm that immigrants to the United States are significantly less likely than native-born citizens like me to commit serious crimes or to be in prison,” said the Rev. Hunter Farrel, 59, of East Liberty, a teacher at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

Several council members said they would support sanctuary city legislation. Peduto is open to the idea, spokesman Tim McNulty said.

“He also opposes all efforts to turn local police into de facto federal immigration officers,” McNulty said.

Kenneth Kaleida, 67, of Beechview said Latino immigrants have revitalized the business district in his neighborhood.

“We have enough crime to deal with and don’t want to have our police waste their time and resources chasing down civil offenses,” he said.

Bob Bauder is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 412-765-2312, [email protected] or via Twitter @bobbauder.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.