Candidate Watch
No Sanctuary from Mitt and Rudy

Mitt and Rudy during the CNN/YouTube debate.
RUDY GIULIANI: "The reality is that New York City was not a sanctuary city...."
ANDERSON COOPER: "Governor, was New York a sanctuary city?"
MITT ROMNEY: "Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city...
GIULIANI: "You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?"
ROMNEY: "No, I did not."
--CNN/YouTube debate, November 28, 2007.
Welcome back to the Mitt and Rudy show! Hold your breath as the Republican front-runners go for the jugular! Admire their fancy footwork! Watch Mr Rough take on Mr Smooth! See if you can spot their semantic tricks!
Once again, Giuliani and Romney are on the opposite sides of an argument about their respective records as mayor of New York and governor of Massachusetts. Romney fired the first shot on this one, depicting New York as a "sanctuary city" that provided refuge to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants. Giuliani responded by alleging that his rival ran a "sanctuary mansion," a reference to the undocumented Guatemalans who looked after his lawn for several years while he was governor. Let's try to sort it all out.
The Facts
Mitt Romney has made a lot of "sanctuary cities." But a search of the Lexis-Nexis database shows that the term was not in widespread use prior to 2001. There was, however, a "sanctuary movement," dating back to the mid-1980s, that was aimed at persuading the Reagan administration to permit half a million undocumented refugees from war-torn Central American countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador to remain in the country. The refugees found haven in churches and synagogues, whose members put pressure on local city councils to curtail their cooperation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
The first cities to embrace "sanctuary policies" were Berkeley, California, and St. Paul, Minn., which passed resolutions in February 1988 opposing the federal government's policies of deporting Central American refugees. Berkeley described itself as a "City of Refuge." A number of other larger cities, including New York, issued directives ordering city employees not to report illegal immigrants to the INS unless they had committed a crime. But most of these places never formally declared themselves to be "sanctuary cities."
The New York policy toward illegal aliens was enshrined in Executive Order 124, signed by Mayor Edward I. Koch on August 7, 1989. The order prohibited city employees from providing "information respecting any alien to federal immigration authorities" unless "required by law" or in cases when the alien was suspected of "engaging in criminal activity." Koch justified the policy on pragmatic grounds, arguing that many aliens refused to make use of city services because they were afraid that they would be reported to the federal immigration authorities. The order stated that other residents would be disadvantaged "if some who live in the City are uneducated, inadequately protected from crime, or untreated from illness."
Executive Order 124 remained in force under Koch's successors, David Dinkins and Rudy Giuliani. The legality of the Koch order went unchallenged until 1997 when Congress adopted a new immigration law that made it illegal for cities to prohibit employees to provide information about illegal aliens to the INS. Giuliani sued the federal government over the new law, arguing that it would "create chaos in New York City," by discouraging illegal immigrants from reporting crimes and sending their children to school. A federal judge and the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled against the mayor, and he was forced to modify the policy.
So who is right: Giuliani or Romney? The Romney campaign was unable to produce a citation or quote to support the governor's claim that New York "called itself a sanctuary city" under Giuliani. On the other hand, the Congressional Research Service, which provides background information to members of Congress on a bipartisan basis, has listed New York as one of several dozen cities following "sanctuary policies." [Contrary to a claim by the Romney campaign, CRS does not formally label New York City a "sanctuary city."] Other cities on the CRS list include Los Angeles, San Francisco, Baltimore, Durham, Austin, Houston, and Seattle.
I examined the question of the Guatemalans on Romney's lawn in a previous post. Romney is technically correct in saying that the Guatemalans did not work directly "for" him: they worked for a company that he contracted to look after his grounds. On the other hand, Giuliani is correct in saying that the Guatemalans worked "at" the Romney mansion.
It boils down to a question of semantics: "at" versus "for". Take your pick.
The Pinocchio Test
Both Giuliani and Romney are attempting to walk a very fine line, painting the most negative possible picture of their rival's record while avoiding factual error. In the particular exchange cited above, Giuliani has managed this feat a little more adroitly than Romney. Romney makes two mistakes. (1) His campaign has not provided support for his claim that New York "called itself a sanctuary city." (2) Illegal immigrants did work "at" his mansion. Two Pinocchios for the governor.


I have been tough on Giuliani in the past, see here, here, and here, so I am going to give him a pass this time. Lately, it seems, everybody has been finding fault with him. See this NYT story today. I note that the mayor made a sort of correction to his claim over the weekend that "violent crime" had risen in Massachusetts under Romney, which earned him two Pinocchios. He now says that Romney's record was "mixed."
"For example, murder went up by 7.5 percent. Burglary went up. One other category of violent crime went up. Some categories of violent crime went down. So, it would be fair to say it's a mixed record."
Posted on November 30, 2007 at 8:40 AM ET
| Category:
2 Pinocchios, Candidate Record, Candidate Watch, Immigration, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani
Share This:
Technorati |
Tag in Del.icio.us |
Digg This |
What Are These Links?
Previous: Rudy the Crime Buster |
Next: A 'Superhighway' to Nowhere
Posted by: The Angry One | November 30, 2007 9:55 AM
So many of them, and the public keeps the faith.
In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views.
Discussing his crime-fighting success as mayor, Mr. Giuliani told a television interviewer that New York was "the only city in America that has reduced crime every single year since 1994."
Do you check the statistics cited by candidates, or do you take their claims at face value?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1143
.
Posted by: PollM | November 30, 2007 10:03 AM
Mr. Dobbs, through the noise of your column's many unprofessional drawbacks (e.g., your thin-skinnedness in punishing candidates for their pointed responses to your inquiries, getting defensive at the criticisms by readers here, and taking a childlike glee sometimes in making a mountain of a molehill), I am actually detecting some substance in your writing. There are many facts to uncover in the course of evaluating candidates' statements, and you are doing a decent job (at times) of finding them and simply presenting them.
One thing is very clearly needed, however. You need to dispense with the Pinnocchios. You have demonstrated no facility, it seems, in dishing them out in any coherent and predictable manner. For instance, Obama gets FOUR BIG LOUD WHOOHOO CAUGHT-IM-IN-A-WHOPPPPPER-SALLY-SUE-BOB!!!! Pinnochios for saying that Bush doubled the debt when in reality the factor by which Bush increased the debt... indeed rounds to two (1.65 I think it was). And in fact, I'm not sure that Romney's statement deserves more than one here. The Pinochios are just sadly random here. You could have yourself a halfway-useful column if you just, you know, checked the facts, and left the theater for others. What do you think?
Posted by: Mark | November 30, 2007 11:09 AM
wow mark - you are "detecting substance in the writing" of the fact checker? What WOULD we ever do without you?
Posted by: Anonymous | November 30, 2007 11:29 AM
Former presidential candidate Michael Dukakis On illegal immigration and specifically Mitt Romney
http://www.youtube.com/v/u8fJCI9IR7M&rel=1
Posted by: LdB | November 30, 2007 11:56 AM
Romney asked GUiliani if he expected him to go out and ask them for their papers because they had funny accents. He said that doing that was un-American, blah blah blah.
Guiliani had no response to that. Because they both took the low road, I find them both to be morons.
Guiliani SHOULD HAVE replied by saying that if Romney was so concerned about illegal immigrants, he didn't need to ask each of them about their status - all he needed to do was ask the management of the company he hired about their hiring practices. "Do you use undocumented workers? Yes? Well, I'll find someone who doesn't."
That's the response Guiliani should have given.
Posted by: corbett | November 30, 2007 12:35 PM
Mr. Dobbs, YOU get so many of those Pinochio's, You can soon lay on your back, and redirect Satelites!
I cannot recall the exact days, when I saw with my own two eyes, and heard with my own two Ears, Giuliani PUBLICALLY declare, that Illegal Immigrants after 911 are allowed Sanctuary in New York City! That THEY are Valuable assets that have nothing to fear in the Sanctuary City. I remember it Plainly, because it was one of the FIRST times I became aware of such a Proclamation!
THEN, to label Mitt Romney a Liar, because when Your Office contacted people in his Office about "Proof", THEY were more concerned about Running a Campaign, than backing up "Common Knowledge", and somehow twist the Fact, HE DID NOT EMPLOY ILLEGALS, is over the top!
Turkey-HE is NOT a Federally Authorized Agent Legally able to Check Employment Verification! THAT, is the Problem! The DAMNED Feds, are NOT doing THEIR DAMNED JOBS!
Maybe, THAT's why HE wants to be THE PRESIDENT! Then, HE WILL BE THE FED!
But of the slimeiest, lowest stunt you pulled, Giuliani ONCE AGAIN deserved 4 Pinochios! But, you Pardoned HIM?
Talk about a Partisan Stunt! Better get on you Back, in some outdoor Location FAST!
Before you poke somebody's eye out with that thing!
Posted by: RAT-The | November 30, 2007 1:01 PM
Am I the only person in the country who thinks this is a stupid debate? If we really want to do something about illegals, we would go after the employers, not the immigrants. They come here for jobs, not the warm welcome, so sanctioning those who hire them would get results quickly. A few CEO perp-walk photos would make cheap labor seem like less of a bargain.
But I think this is just cheap grandstanding by the candidates. They won't take on the business interests who do the hiring, so they act tough against powerless immigrants. These people are cowards.
Posted by: JW | November 30, 2007 1:35 PM
Illegal immigration has become our plight
With ever increasing numbers it is now a blight
Law abiding Americans should now start to fight
Because our politicians really bite
Our congress people and senators need to go fly a kite
And get the heck out of our sight
Send the illegals into flight
They will leave when we show our might
Romney and Guliani are the trojan horse people - do not fall for it because those who do will have the future of our country's demise in their hands. Hillary and Obama are just as dangerous and dishonest.
Posted by: candyzky | November 30, 2007 2:32 PM
RAT-The said: "Turkey-HE is NOT a Federally Authorized Agent Legally able to Check Employment Verification! THAT, is the Problem! The DAMNED Feds, are NOT doing THEIR DAMNED JOBS!"
Sure, but no. If Romney was so danged concerned about illegal immigrants, all he needed to do was ask the landscaping company "Do you only hire legal workers?"
If they didn't say yes, then find one that did.
The reality is, he didn't care to find out. Why? Because he didn't care about who did the work, only that they did it cheapest.
And if Guiliani had half a brain, he would have hammered Romney using this point - there's nothing stopping you insisting the guys who come to work at your mansion have been hired legally.
Posted by: scorbett1976 | November 30, 2007 2:36 PM
When Rudy and Hilary were campaigning for the Senate race in NY, my wife and I sent Rudy a check for $1K because we read Hilary's running was to position herself for a future presidential run; and with the Clinton's record of "China Gate, Lincoln bedroom escapades, and Pardon Gate (to name a few)," we did not want her to win.
Less than two weeks later, Rudy feigned health problems and withdrew from the race. I immediately wrote Rudy a personal letter and requested he hand over our donation to Rick Lazzio who, at the last moment, took over for him.
Rudy ignored our letter and, as far we know, did not transfer the money, but kept it to subsidize his mistress. In his Presidential campaign, things are dribbling out to describe his true character--"don't TRUST him!"
Posted by: Ching | November 30, 2007 3:41 PM
"But a search of the Nexis-Lexis database shows that the term was not in widespread use prior to 2001."
Mr. Dobbs, I believe you mean the Lexis-Nexis database. Minor problem in an otherwise outstanding blog. Kudos for providing a non-partisan (despite what others here may say) interpretation of the war of words between Rudy and Mitt.
Posted by: Jack | November 30, 2007 3:46 PM
Thanks Jack, for your comment. You are right about Lexis-Nexis. I will correct it.
Posted by: The Fact Checker | November 30, 2007 4:24 PM
Mr Fact-Checker, I need your help.
I'm a republican, and I hate illegal aliens. The problem is, I can't afford health insurance, so when my kids were born, I had them registered as Canadian citizens so they could get the free medical care and access to top notch hockey camps year round.
I know that's illegal but it's saved me a ton of money and after all, I told you I was republican right out of the box(so if you're surprised, that's your fault).
Here's my problem. Turns out my kids are illegal aliens.
I was going to take them down to the INS myself, but the wife said no. I told her we need to put them out of the house before we get in trouble for harboring the little fugitives and running a "sanctuary trailer" but again, the dang woman says "no".
I have to do something, them little varmints are like a pack of ticking time bombs. One wrong word up at the school and the next thing you know the Board of Education is going to hand me a bill for their schoolin'. ME, a life-long Republican, PAYING for public school! I hate public schools, they only teach communism and abortion. If they weren't free, I'd a never sent them little heathens up there. We got a perfectly good primitive fundamentalist school/hair dressers right up the street, but they was gonna charge me.
I mean they look like Americans, they even sound like Americans, except the little one keeps calling his older sister a "hoser", but mostly they can pass.
You have all the facts, whatever can I do?
Posted by: Djetlo | December 2, 2007 4:54 PM
again with the bizarre pinocchios. you are giving giuliani a pass because he's rated badly in the past? what? if anything, the fact that he's racking up such a consistent record of fact-mutilation seems to warrant harsher treatment.
Posted by: /b | December 4, 2007 2:20 PM
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Posted by: votenic | December 4, 2007 2:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Contact the Fact Checker
We rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups and the media. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on a subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know.
If you wish to send an attachment, please e-mail factchecker@washpost.com.


Hey, I pointed out Giuliani's "mixed record" comment yesterday. Is The Fact Checker listening to me?
Giuliani made the "mixed" comment because he got pushback on his attacks of Romney, the pushback coming from many places including The Fact Checker.
If Giuliani is listening to The Fact Checker, and The Fact Checker is listening to me, does that mean I'm partially running the Giuliani campaign???!???
Hmmmm....let's check it out.
Giuliani should, as president:
- eliminate the Department of Education
- take the FICA excess "Trust Fund" payments and invest them in Thrift Savings Plan C for future Social Security beneficiaries
- repeal the Medicare prescription drug program
- repeal the federal law prohibiting health insurance from being sold across state lines
There. We'll see if that takes.