Dakota Beacon

The 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals (Manhattan) has ruled that the federal government can withhold federal funding to sanctuary cities.  This means that in order to get federal monies these cities must now cooperate with the federal government with regard to immigration violations, to cooperate with ICE.

I suppose we should see this as a step in the “right direction”.  It is the federal government bringing out the old hammer and applying it to the insubordinate city councils, mayors, counties  and local law enforcement agencies. These entities have been disgraceful in their abuse of the law, of the taxpayers and of the rights of citizens to their protection.  Many will see this decision as progress in combating lawlessness and the disorder that is beginning to take over some of our cities.

If we are to be handing out federal tax dollars to municipalities and other local jurisdictions and law enforcement agencies, it is not unreasonable to expect them not to secede, which, in effect, some of these local governments seem to have done.  However, there is another, darker side to this. While the intent of this decision and the purpose of this case has been to enforce federal law, it does seem to set a precedent which we should view with a sense of caution at least.  

I have written in the past about the undesirable effects of federal funding of local law enforcement.  When we allow this we are bringing federal power to bear on local law enforcement agencies. In the use of the agencies to assist in the enforcement of federal law - illegal immigration and enforcement of federal law, this is entirely appropriate.  In such situations, the local officials are acting as an agent, in effect, of the federal government. They should be compensated for costs related to that specific aspect of their work. They should also be required to provide that assistance in the interest of protecting the public.

However, this kind of thing can be abused.  We run a risk when we allow our local jurisdictions to participate in federal funding for any non-federal purpose of advancing the power of the federal government beyond its proper range of activities.  Here is an example. Former Sheriff Richard Mack of Arizona (now in Texas) explained his and that of other law enforcement officials there, refusal to enforce aspects of the Brady Bill, a gun-grabbing federal bill.  They said they were not compensated by the federal government to process and enforce this law. The federal government tried to force this and it went to the Supreme Court, where it was held that the federal government could not use the resources of local law enforcement to enforce a federal law (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)).  It would not surprise me if these jurisdictions - the so-called sanctuary cities - are not already well into developing their case based on Printz.  I think it highly likely that this case will go to the Supreme Court (unless Coronavirus gets the litigants first).  

There is good reason to keep the federal government out of local law enforcement.  I have objected in the past to federal programs to fund additional personnel to local law agencies as well as funding for equipment.  Allowing federal money to be used for local law enforcement takes the “local” out of that equation. We should reject this instead of encouraging our city councils to pad up the accounts with this ill-gotten gain.  Instead of sending our Congressmen to raid the federal exchequer for funding for these programs we should firmly say no to such funding. The exception would be to fund the assistance in the enforcement of federal law which is specifically permitted under the Constitution - this would include immigration issues.  

Immigration falls under the mantle of the federal government’s legitimate powers.  In this case it is appropriate to fund the expenses tallied up in this assistance - extra personnel needed, any facilities needed, etc., for enforcement of immigration law.  However the idea of suspending funds for all kinds of other programs which are not related directly to federal law is nothing but blackmail based on non-legitimate dependency on federal resources.  The flip side, of course, is calling it simply a bribe. Take your pick. Either one renders local law enforcement a mere extension of federal power. One day we may come to rue this dependency and control.  All kinds of excuses are given to insinuate federal money and control into our local agencies - the war on drugs, the war on poverty, wars on just about everything. Only strictly federal issues should be involved in federal funding.  

There should be no federal funding for housing, for “resettlement”, for the arts, for healthcare, for any other kinds of functions other than operations specified under the Constitution.  No armored vehicles for the Fourth of July parades, no extra personnel, no fancy offices.  

While we can take some small satisfaction in the decision of the 2nd District, we should not expect it to end there.  I would support the decision only insofar as federal immigration law is involved. There is one distinct difference between the Printz decision and this - namely that the federal government is charged with the responsibility of immigration policy.  It is not charged with these other matters. If we allow them to fund them then we will invite their control. It is conceivable that at some future point in time this federal hammer might be used to enforce red flag laws, healthcare policies, education policies (as in Cuba?) and in many other aspects of our lives.  We should be careful what we wish for.

Comments:  (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)