Perhaps never before in modern times have so many established politicians and government leaders spoken openly about lawbreaking, defending the once minor instance of sanctuary cities, hiding illegal immigrants from authorities.

Mayor Jim Clarke is in one of the toughest positions heading into the March 27 showdown on whether Culver City officially will become a sanctuary city.

As a lifelong politician, he has been known for doing what is right rather than expedient.

It was reported yesterday that Mr. Clarke is not necessarily an affirmative vote going into the meeting.

He has spoken supportively of symbolically designating Culver City a sanctuary city.

But is there a way to prevent symbolism from spilling over into lawbreaking?

“It appears that breaking the law occurs if we use government resources – generally meaning police – to prevent the people from ICE from carrying out their duties,” Mr. Clarke said.

“Or if we were to ignore a legitimate court order to turn someone over to ICE.

“And I will tell you that this never has occurred, as far as (Police) Chief (Scott) Bixby has known, in part because rarely do we detain people for a very long time.”

The mayor, standing in the verbal crossfire between proponents and opponents, has sounded as if he is approaching the March 27 meeting with a heavy heart.

True?

“I saw where the City Council in Riverside spent five years debating whether to become a sanctuary city,” Mr. Clarke said.

“I have no interest in spending hours upon hours just to reaffirm something we already are doing so we can call it a sanctuary city.

“We have more important issues to deal with,” the mayor said.