Red City vs. Blue City

It appears that attacking certain cities has become the latest strategy in becoming elected President of the United States. Not just any cities mind you - but, at least for the time being, 'sanctuary cities' - those municipalities that openly consider themselves safe havens for those who are in the country illegaly.

It's a curious but not surprising development in a country that increasingly is divided along ideological lines. The communities we live in define so much of our political identites. It's what makes Fresno, Fresno and Berkeley, Berkeley. After all, if we have already divided ourselves into red states and blue states, why not red cities and blue cities?

It appears that attacking certain cities has become the latest strategy in becoming elected President of the United States. Not just any cities mind you - but, at least for the time being, 'sanctuary cities' - those municipalities that openly consider themselves safe havens for those who are in the country illegaly.

It's a curious but not surprising development in a country that increasingly is divided along ideological lines. The communities we live in define so much of our political identites. It's what makes Fresno, Fresno and Berkeley, Berkeley. After all, if we have already divided ourselves into red states and blue states, why not red cities and blue cities?

It makes for a convenient way for the candidates to distinguish themselves, or at least it has become one for the front runners for the GOP nomination. Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, the two leading candidates for the Republican nomination can both lay claim to executive experience - Romney as a Governor of a blue state (Massachussets) and Giuliani as a mayor of a blue city (New York City).

In a recent speech Mitt Romney decried 'sanctuary cities' for exacerbating the illegal immigration problem. Romney states that by providing safe haven, welcoming illegals even, these major metropolitan areas are magnets for those looking to cross the border without documentation. 

In a CNN article titled "Romney blasts 'sanctuary cities' for attracting illegal immigrants" the former Governor called out specific major US cities as magnets for illegals: San Francisco, New York City and Newark.

So why are cities suddenly coming under fire in this federal issue?

Well, San Francisco has long been a target for Republican hopefuls because it's a city that prides itself on not reflecting the views of mainstream America. New York City is clearly the veiled target of Romney's broadside because its also a jab at Giuliani who will have to carry the baggage of New York City along with its torch.

Romney, who will invariably come under attack for his own blue states foibles, is getting in front of those attacks by going on the offense by framing the Big Apple as being little different than San Francisco among red state voters. After all, both cities refelect the antithesis of red state culture and values - from urban crime to gay marriage to havens of high tax rates and large communities of undocumented immigrants - these coastal metropolis' are coming to define the cultural battles of the next Presidential campaign.

San Francisco and New York City are both easy and obvious targets, but Newark?

Newark?

Does anyone among us really believe that the policy or people of Newark, New Jersey pose a threat to the future of the United States?

Probably not, but that serves to make the underlying point precisely. That is, if your city chooses to adopt policies of being a safe haven for illegals, you can expect to be characterized as a blue city. Adopt an ordinance requiring your city police to verify the legal status of speeding drivers and oila - you're a red city.

By entering this national debate, and many California cities are, elected city leaders are defacto making a broader political statement about any number of cultural issues that face the nation. Presidential campaigns encourage this. Increasingly, we are drawing the national political lines that divide us on the dais of city council chambers.

Cities in this state have passed resolutions on issues as varied as supporting the troops overseas and on impeaching the President. I'm not too sure what those issues have to do with safe streets and clean parks but clearly there are elected officials who feel the need to use their position to try to sway the national debate, in however small a way.

Is it inconceivable to believe that Democrat candidates could decry and disavow southern cities that have a confederate emblem in their city seals or that fly that same flag over their city hall? Is it so outrageous as to think say, Dennis Kucinich or Joe Biden might not call for the halting of city sanctioned prayer at the beginning of a city council meeting to make a broader point in the national debate about the roles of church and state? That Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton might not call upon city councils to adopt a resolution calling for the immediate withdrawl of troops from Iraq?

Of course it's not inconceivable. Actually, its probable. In fact, its already begun.