https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-migrant-influx-tests-the-sanctuary-citys-limits-mayor-adams-f3264896?mod=opinion_lead_pos8
When Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began busing illegal immigrants to Northern cities last year, he said he wanted to call out progressive sanctuary-city elitism and draw more attention to a humanitarian crisis with which border states have been struggling for decades. Mr. Abbott has succeeded and then some.
Big-city Democrats who once dismissed the complaints of Republican officials such as Mr. Abbott are now begging for mercy. Chicago declared a state of emergency in the wake of its migrant influx, and the District of Columbia was compelled to establish an Office of Migrant Services. Earlier this month in New York, which has seen the arrival of more than 70,000 undocumented migrants since last spring, Mayor Eric Adams asked a judge to allow the city to suspend its longstanding “right to shelter” rule.
“It is in the best interest of everyone, including those seeking to come to the United States, to be upfront that New York City cannot single-handedly provide care to everyone crossing our border,” Mr. Adams said in a statement. “Being dishonest about this will only result in our system collapsing, and we need our government partners to know the truth and do their share.”
New York is spending an estimated $5 million a day to house and feed these new arrivals. It tried placing them in homeless shelters, which quickly filled to capacity. Next, they were sent to hotels, dormitories and even unused jail cells. Mr. Adams tried persuading upstate counties to accept some of the migrants, but he lacks jurisdiction to force the issue and pushback has been stiff. The courts may be his last option.
New York’s right-to-shelter rule is the product of a 1979 lawsuit brought by homeless advocates. In a subsequent settlement, the city agreed to provide universal housing to men, and later to women and families. Because of the settlement, the state’s top court never issued a ruling on the matter. “One presumes that the city settled the case to avoid the inflexibility that a final high court ruling would have created,” the Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas wrote in City Journal recently. “But in the current crisis, the city has done nothing with the flexibility that it retains.”
