Recently there was a lengthy article in The New York Times on “sanctuary cities.” The article reported, “With immigration continuing to flare and frustrate as a national political issue, sanctuary cities like San Francisco may soon be the next battlefront. Critics argue that sanctuary policies discourage the police from enforcing laws, though about 50 cities and counties have enacted variations on sanctuary … They include Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington.”

I was mayor of New York City for 12 years from 1978 to 1989. Early in my administration I issued three executive orders pertaining to illegal or undocumented persons:

One provided that all school-age children would be welcome in our public schools. Parents were encouraged to enroll them and advised that school authorities would not ask how the children came to the United States nor would they report their illegal or undocumented status to the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The reason for the order was to avoid having children on the streets where they could be victimized by predators or themselves menace others. It also made sense to educate them.

The second executive order ensured that city-owned hospitals would accept and treat any person in need of medical care. Administrators would neither inquire about their immigration status nor report their names to the federal authorities. Providing medical care to illegals or undocumented people, particularly those having contagious diseases, was not only compassionate but protective of the entire city population.

The third order provided that illegal or undocumented persons who were crime victims could report the crime to the New York City Police Department knowing the police would not report their illegal or undocumented status to the Feds. If that person had himself committed a crime other than that of being an illegal immigrant, he would be arrested and reported to the immigration authorities. I believe a court, passing on the legality of this order, determined that law enforcement officers could lawfully violate the executive order by reporting the illegal immigrant status to federal authorities. On the other hand, if they wanted to be bound by the executive order, they could do so. Illegal aliens are sometimes assaulted because they are viewed as easy prey who will not report the crime to the authorities. Providing crime information to the police protects everyone.

I am pleased to report that all of my successors—Mayors Dinkins, Giuliani and Bloomberg—reissued those three executive orders and they still are on the books. In my opinion, New York City and other cities with similar governing regulations do not warrant the term “sanctuary cities,” which suggests non-compliance with federal immigration laws.

Many members of Congress, particularly Democrats and the president, favor providing amnesty to illegals currently residing in the United States—an estimated 12 million to 20 million people—which ultimately could earn them the right to apply for U.S. citizenship. Many people, myself included, do not believe amnesty will work. It will simply encourage more illegal immigration as did the amnesty provided under the Simpson-Rodino act of 1986.

If the president and Congress determine we need larger numbers of permanent immigrants, I suggest they enlarge the immigration quotas now in effect and add to the more than one million immigrants a year now coming to the United States legally. Included in that number are approximately 250,000 refugees. Guest worker programs should be created where needed, providing that the guest be required to return home at the end of a year or two. Guest workers should be entitled to a minimum wage and health care rights as long as they are in this country. Employers violating the guest worker protection laws or hiring foreigners not legally eligible to work in the United States should be subject to large fines and prison sentences, mandated after the first or second offense.

*      *     *

Nancy Pelosi did not show good judgment in supporting John Murtha over Steny Hoyer for the position of majority leader. Hoyer served as minority whip during the years the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. John Murtha was in part responsible for Pelosi’s election as House minority leader four years ago. He also is reported to be Pelosi’s close friend. What makes Pelosi’s support of Murtha so troubling is that Murtha, a leader of the movement to withdraw from Iraq, a position supported by a majority of Democrats, has a history of participation in the Abscam scandal of about 25 years ago, which should have disqualified him from being considered for a leadership position. A Times editorial summed it up stating, “The resurrected tape—feasted upon by Pelosi enemies—shows how Mr. Murtha narrowly survived as an unindicted co-conspirator admittedly tempted but finally rebuffing a bribe offer with ‘I’m not interested—at this point.’”

Why would Nancy Pelosi seek to make Murtha the No. 2 person in the House Democratic Party, and her possible successor as speaker? Hubris. Giddy with power, she thought she could impose her will. Fortunately, the vote was secret and the members voted their conscience. The vote was 149-86 in favor of Hoyer. Hurrah for secret votes eliminating fear of retaliation.

*     *     *

My proposal first advanced in my commentary of March 14, 2006, that we announce we will withdraw from Iraq within six months unless we are joined there by our regional and NATO allies, becomes more appealing every day. Results of the recent election confirm that voters want a “new direction” in the U.S. policy on Iraq that includes at least the beginning of withdrawal. If our allies join us, we stay. If they don’t, we leave.

Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch can be heard every Friday at 6 p.m. on Bloomberg Radio.