One thing I want to continue to make clear is that this exercise is one of self-education. While I’ve kept a keen interest in politics after studying it in college and making a brief career of it afterwards, my purpose here similar to me (hypothetically) trying to get back to the gym after a decade of not working out. As such, there’s a lot of reacquainting that I need to do, and I’m documenting it both for my own benefit and for anyone who finds themselves either in a similar situation, or perhaps is new to this whole thing.
The issue that’s come up involving sanctuary cities is a perfect example. Even though I now live in one, I’d been under the impression that it wasn’t much more than a euphemism. Yet here we are, less than one week into Donald Trump’s presidency, and he’s made it a focal point of an early wave of executive orders. The most disturbing
First, there doesn’t seem to be an official, legal definition of what is and is not a “sanctuary city.” Instead, it’s a term used by politicians for any geographic areas (some are cities, but there are entire states that qualify, like California and Vermont) that don’t fully comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests to turn people suspected of being here illegally over to the government. Now, this gets conflated a lot with perpetrators of crime, since Republicans don’t ever mention sanctuary cities without bringing up every incidence of a crime committed by an illegal immigrant. Crime is still illegal in California. The sanctuary city designation simply applies to people the federal government wants turned over just for being here illegally.
What Trump’s order does (or, more specifically, intends to do) is to block federal grant money from cities, counties, and communities designated as “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants, with an exception being made for funds “deemed necessary for law enforcement purposed by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.” Press secretary Sean Spicer, using language that is already becoming a familiar excuse for actions Republicans are taking, framed it as a benefit to taxpayers, saying “The American people are no longer going to have to be forced to subsidize the disregard for our laws.”
(At this point, I need to mention that New York and California (along with other large, liberal states) contribute far more to the federal government than gets returned. Threatening to withhold money from a state that contributes more than it gets back is like a child attempting to blackmail the parents that give them an allowance.)
But back to the matter at hand. Big-city mayors (who I discussed the importance of yesterday) were quick to push back against the President’s executive order. In New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio promised that the order “won’t change how we enforce the law.”
De Blasio said that the city has been able to dramatically reduce the crime rate in the nation’s largest city, in part, because relationships the police department has managed to build in immigrant communities. He added that if Trump follows through with the plan it would mean he’s effectively cutting funding from the New York Police Department. An early analysis by NYC officials suggested that about $156 million in federal funding for the NYPD could be impacted.
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh was similarly defiant, even going so far as to say he’s open City Hall to illegal immigrants if that’s what it took:
“If people want to live here, they’ll live here. They can use my office. They can use any office in this building,’’
<img height=”1″ width=”1″ style=”display:none” src=”https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=884869448226452&ev=PageView&noscript=1″ />
Tragedy of the Commons 