Missouri Republicans target KC after Lucas’ immigration comments. Is it ‘just performative’?

Reality Check is a Star series holding those with power to account and shining a light on their decisions. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email our journalists at RealityCheck@kcstar.com.

Missouri Republican lawmakers are attempting to target Kansas City through the state budget, proposing to strip all state funds from any city that becomes a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants.

But while the proposal is aimed at Kansas City, Mayor Quinton Lucas has said he has no plans to make the city a sanctuary city for illegal immigration.

It comes as Missouri Republicans repeatedly distort comments Lucas made welcoming migrant workers who are in the U.S. legally and legal experts say the budget language would likely not affect Lucas’ plans.

The GOP-controlled Senate in the coming weeks is poised to debate the state’s $50 billion spending plan for the next fiscal year which includes an amendment requiring cities that welcome undocumented immigrants to pay back all state funds. It builds on a state law that bars cities from giving undocumented immigrants a “lawful presence” in violation of federal law.

“I think Mayor Lucas is in error in this,” said Sen. Mike Cierpiot, a Lee’s Summit Republican on the Senate budget committee. “Kansas City’s having a good run. I don’t know why he wants to mess that up.”

The move comes just weeks after Lucas wrote on social media that “All are welcome in Kansas City.”

Lucas linked to an article in which he said that the Kansas City economy would benefit from workers seeking asylum or other legal status in the U.S. but who are stuck in crowded shelters in cities such as New York awaiting work permits or other documentation.

The Kansas City mayor also posted a follow-up, emphasizing that he was talking about “persons who are lawfully present, with lawful work permits, and the lawful ability to come to our community.”

A chorus of Missouri Republicans, including all three major GOP candidates for governor, have seized on Lucas’ comments over the past two weeks as Republicans seek to draw attention to issues at the southern border with Mexico ahead of the 2024 election.

But legal experts say that the budget language, which was added at the urging of Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer, a Parkville Republican, would likely have no impact on Kansas City largely because it is already illegal to adopt sanctuary policies in Missouri.

Luetkemeyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

“It’s more of a press release than an attempt at lawmaking,” said Chuck Hatfield, a Jefferson City-based attorney who previously worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office. “It’s just performative.”

Hatfield also pointed to previous court rulings that stated lawmakers could not change state laws through the budget, saying that the budget language could also run afoul of the Missouri Constitution.

Michael Wolff, a former Missouri Supreme Court chief justice, said in an interview that he also didn’t think the budget language would do anything to Kansas City.

“The object of a budget bill is to allocate money,” he said. “What they’ve taken on is a new duty and that is to confuse people.”

Still, some Republicans remain steadfast in framing Lucas’ comments as an invitation for undocumented immigrants to come to Kansas City. One of those officials is Republican Treasurer Vivek Malek, who immigrated to the U.S. from India.

Malek moved to the U.S. and underwent a 16-year immigration process that included a student visa, a work visa, legal permanent resident status and then he became a lawful naturalized citizen, he said.

“There is no question that Mayor Lucas is pushing to accept undocumented immigrants,” Malek said, pointing to policies under Democratic President Joe Biden. “This is a slap in the face to those who, like me, waited for years and followed the law, for Biden to simply turn the law upside down and create shortcuts.”

The Biden administration has authorized expedited work permits for some eligible migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua for humanitarian reasons. People who obtain those permits are allowed to temporarily live and work in the U.S. legally.

But House Majority Leader Jonathan Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, told reporters this week that he understood Lucas was talking about Kansas City accepting workers who were in the country legally — a statement he did not have an issue with.

“I don’t have any problem with legal immigration,” he said. “I have a problem with illegal immigration.”

Patterson, however, said that while he had not read the proposed budget language, he would be supportive of barring funding from cities that adopt sanctuary policies.

Sen. Barbara Washington, a Kansas City Democrat, said in an interview that she hoped the budget language was just a political maneuver and “not something serious.” But she signaled she was concerned by the move.

“This isn’t the time to play these types of games,” she said. “We need to get a budget through that helps everyone…you don’t file something that would hamper Missourians, which is what this language can potentially do.”

Senate Minority Leader John Rizzo, an Independence Democrat, said in an interview that he also didn’t think the language would do anything to Kansas City — pointing to current Missouri laws surrounding sanctuary cities.

However, Rizzo also appeared to express some frustration with Lucas for his comments on social media that have sparked a firestorm among Republicans in Jefferson City.

“It causes us heartburn down here,” he said. “I know it sounds good to fire off a tweet from 200 miles away, but, you know, there’s real people on the other end that are gonna have to expend man hours and energy to try to figure out how to resolve the situation.”

Rizzo said he has a good relationship with Lucas, but wished there was more communication and substantive plans in place before he made his comments.

For Hatfield, the Jefferson City-based attorney, the budget language does not change anything about current Missouri laws surrounding sanctuary cities.

“Either it doesn’t do anything or it does something that’s likely unconstitutional,” he said. “I think it’s the former — it just doesn’t do anything.”