Sanctuary Cities and DoJ Funding: The Hypocrisy of Jeff Sessions

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrest
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrest (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In a surprise White House appearance on March 27, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced his intent to make America’s cities less safe and more vulnerable to crime unless he gets his way.

He didn’t say it quite like that, of course. In fact, he asserted the opposite, accusing so-called “sanctuary cities” of “mak[ing] our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets” and conditioning future grants from the US Department of Justice’s Office of Justice on certification by the recipient state and local governments that they are not “sanctuary” jurisdictions.

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think the federal government should be handing out money and equipment (especially military equipment) to state and local police departments and court systems in the first place. Such gifts always come with strings attached, as Sessions is demonstrating with this stand. Better to keep local law enforcement locally funded and locally controlled.

That said, Sessions and his department presumably believe that the money in question (recent examples include grants for “Smart Policing,” police body cameras, and sexual assault kits) makes communities safer. That’s why the money gets handed out, at least in theory.

If Sessions does believe that his grants help keep us safe, then he’s essentially threatening to increase the likelihood that you or I will be assaulted, raped, mugged or murdered unless our local, county and state governments bend to his will.

That’s not very nice, Jeff. In fact, it’s the opposite of your job as Attorney General. As is supporting the very idea of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement “detainers.”

I happen to live in a “sanctuary county.” In 2015, Alachua County, Florida Sheriff Sadie Darnell set forth her department’s policy, which seems eminently reasonable: The department will not honor ICE “detainers” unless they’re accompanied by judicial orders or warrants.

Frankly, that should be the bottom line for every law enforcement agency in the country. When it comes to keeping someone in a cage who would otherwise be free to go, “because ICE wants him” isn’t good enough. The US Constitution is clear: “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

If federal law enforcement officers can’t even be bothered to see a judge and get an arrest warrant, they shouldn’t be asking local law enforcement to hold someone for them, nor should Jeff Sessions be threatening the rest of us over it.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION  HISTORY


Also published on Medium.

  • Pingback: Rational Review News Digest, 03/30/17 - US Senate intelligence leaders pledge to pick up "Russia hacked the election" histrionics where House left off; The tangled web of anti-immigration argumentation - Thomas L. Knapp - Liberty.me()

  • Rockslider1

    since when has the constitution provided rights to illegals ? The very term ” illegal ” is the key to the issue. The constitution was written for the citizens of the country alone not illegals

    • 1) The Constitution does not provide rights. It protects right (if it is followed).

      2) I quoted the Constitution for you in the column itself. “No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Not “no citizen,” not “no legal resident,” just “no person.”

      3) The Constitution includes no federal power to regulate immigration (in fact, Article I, Section 9 FORBIDS the federal government to regulate immigration). The Constitution being the “Supreme Law of the Land,” there is not and by definition cannot be, any such thing as an “illegal immigrant.”

    • dL

      The very term ” illegal ” is the key to the issue

      The use of the term illegal to describe a human being is key to the issue of identifying farcical nazi wannabes.