Recent months have seen a dramatic uptick in the number of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the southern border, and major U.S. cities are struggling to accommodate them when they arrive.

Migrants are sleeping in Chicago police stations and sheltering on a former cruise ship terminal in New York. Of the two cities, the former has spent over $320 million and the latter over $1.7 billion on migrants thus far. Even the city of Denver is shelling out nearly $2 million per week to deal with this issue.

The situation is not good for migrants, residents, or city officials.

So, at the end of October, the mayors of five major U.S. cities sent a letter to the President, asking him to help bail them out of their immigration crises. The three-page document was sent by Denver mayor Mike Johnston and co-signed by Brandon Johnson (Chicago), Eric Adams (New York City), Karen Bass (Los Angeles) and Sylvester Turner (Houston).

In the letter, they thanked President Biden for the $1.4 billion in assistance he has already proposed, but they maintained that “additional action is needed.”

What “additional action” do they have in mind?

Among other things, such as increased access to work authorization and a coordinated migrant distribution process, they are requesting $5 billion. The letter explains:

“While we are greatly appreciative of the additional federal funding proposed, our city budgets and local taxpayers continue to bear the brunt of this ongoing federal crisis. Cities have historically absorbed and integrated new migrants with success, but . . . [g]iven the impact this crisis has had—and continues to have—on state and local budgets we respectfully advocate for additional funding” (p. 1 of the letter).

As we look at the background of the current situation and these mayors’ proposed solution, two observations starkly jump off the paper. The mayors’ letter manifests two significant problems.

First, it reveals a double standard on whether they are willing to work with the federal government.

Second, it uncovers an emotionally appealing political strategy that simply lacks foresight.

It’s quite ironic that, of the five mayors requesting federal money to deal with what they call “this ongoing federal crisis” (p. 1, italics mine), four of them are “sanctuary cities.” According to the Center for Immigration Studies, the cities of New York, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles are all on a list of jurisdictions that have policies which

“obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement].”

To be fair, Houston is not on this list—but to be frank, the other four out of five mayors who call this a federal crisis are leaders of cities that explicitly refuse to cooperate with the federal government’s immigration enforcement officers.

In other words, these mayors are thumbing their nose at and holding out their hand to the federal government at the same time. “We want your money, but we don’t want to cooperate with your rules.” Perhaps, before U.S. cities come pleading for help in D.C., they should stop priding themselves on their obstruction of federal immigration policies.

Now that their pride point has become a pain point, the double standard rears its ugly head. Yet, nowhere in the letter do the mayors admit the inconsistency in their cities’ actions.

On the other hand, the irony not only resides in the double standard many of these cities hold to, but also in the lack of foresight evident in Chicago’s case specifically. Take a peek at Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson’s campaign website (from when he was running for mayor leading up to his April election).

The “immigration” tab on his site tells it all; he criticized previous Chicago leadership for allowing a situation eerily similar to the one he is now presiding over:

 “Previously, Chicago has bulldozed its way through difficult decisions about migrant resettlement without care or forethought – failing longtime residents and arriving migrant families. Even worse, welcoming migrants into our city with no real plan has left many stranded across Chicago, sleeping on trains and floors.“

Now in office, Johnson is struggling to deal with the very situation he criticized his predecessors for.

Perhaps this is a clue that there’s something shortsighted about Johnson’s commitment that

“sanctuary means that everyone is welcome here, and as a city we commit to take care of each other and provide all of our neighbors with the resources they need to thrive.”

The problem isn’t that he wants to care for immigrants.

The problem is his simple assumption that Chicago has the ability to “provide all of our neighbors with the resources they need!”

Lofty goals remain lofty goals until they are actually able to be put into practice. And since Johnson is not able to put them into practice, he is turning to the feds to help him out.