Once again, the heavily lopsided left-leaning city governance in New York is barking orders, expecting federal agents to go fetch. In a political exercise some may consider jurisdictional overreach, NYC Council members are demanding all Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials don body-worn cameras.
On August 24, 2017 NYC Council members took to the steps of City Hall to assert that all federal immigration officers should wear body cams “during field operations and removal proceedings.” They feel so convinced this is necessary that they wrote a bill for it (Res. 1622-2017), asking President Trump and Congress to enact legislation sponsored by Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D – New York). I found no mention that NYC wishes to share the expense.
Rep. Espaillat added, “It is critical that we establish procedures that protect immigrants.” Conveniently omitted from his narrative is any mention pertaining to the protection of citizens (and cops) confronted by violent illegal aliens. The myopic view in some government lenses pervades still, and the authors want their narrow-minded philosophies accepted by all.
Councilman Carlos Menchaca (D – Brooklyn) added his two cents, saying, “ICE agents are doing good work” and body-cams worn by federal officers “set the highest standards for professionalism, transparency, and accountability when law enforcement interacts with vulnerable populations like immigrants and undocumented people.”
Two-Way Street
Accountability goes both ways, too. Despite firearms, ballistic vests, and a host of self-protection apparatus, law enforcement officers are supremely vulnerable to threats and death, often accosted by those who decisively react poorly, tragically exercising both dynamics of fight/flight theory. If “vulnerable populations like immigrants and undocumented people” legitimately engaged the US naturalization process, the conversation would be moot. Sanctuary states, counties, and cities wouldn’t be a thing of contention if not for would-be foreigners seeking citizenship accordingly.
The gist of NYC’s proposal stems from allegations of force used when ICE agents affect arrests. Although a newsflash is not necessarily needed, it bears repeating that desperate people often refuse to obey lawful orders, fight back, and resist law enforcement officers. In the case of allegations of abuse, body-cams capture footage of preceding elements justifying force by cops. The footage also becomes evidence against the combatant.
Although the law enforcement community is working out the kinks posed by body-worn cameras, their novel use has reigned in a host of false claims against cops. I agree that body cams serve justice well.
Further, city council members claim federal immigration agents are targeting nonviolent immigrants for deportation proceedings. No argument there either. That’s their exact responsibility. Who said it must come with a fight or resistance in order to be justified enforcement?
“Who said it must come with a fight or resistance in order to be justified enforcement?”
Federal code 8 USC § 1324 authorizes particular actions, and ICE agents are specifically responsible for enforcing immigration statutes. Not sure how body-cams would go either way there except to capture audio/video of what each deportee says/does in the course of custody. Often, unwitting intelligence is gathered that way, so body-cams become a force multiplier. Utterances and actions become evidence.
Then Came Trump
Although I implore the use of police body cams, there’s one curious stickler point to be made regarding what NY’s mostly-Democrat leadership wishes. All throughout the prior presidential administration, no one in NYC power positions combed through the hair of the dog to see what would shake out. Now that a Republican president is in office and has his periscope coordinates focused on the fester of illegal immigration, the largest sanctuary city decides to elbow the feds in the rib cage. Curiously convenient.
As written in AMNewYork.com,“After taking office, Trump changed the Obama-era rules that required ICE agents to only focus on immigrants who have committed serious crimes. The number of arrests of those living here illegally rose 38 percent during Trump’s first 100 days, compared with the same time period in 2016, according to ICA data released in May.”
And that is exactly my point.
Body-worn cameras are fairly new technology in law enforcement, but they have been around when Mr. Obama was in the White House. No one saw the need to speak up and demand police use body cams then, making it…suspect. So why now is NYC Council barking for more beef? The feeble nature of how people react when their security blankets are peeled back astounds.
Oversight, Oversight, Oversight
Among NYC Council members —47 Democrats, three Republicans, one vacancy created by a Democrat who was federally incarcerated two weeks ago— I believe it is more a matter of control, control, control. To put it into context, the NYPD has at least six layers of oversight to root-out misconduct and ensure the integrity of the police force. A mixture of city entities and civilian watch-groups encompass the Law Department, the Comptroller, the NYPD’s Internal Affairs Unit, an Inspector General for the Police Department, the Commission to Combat Police Corruption, and the Civilian Complaint Review Board. That’s a cornucopia of oversight (control).
Seeking to reduce police misconduct, city councilman Jumaane Williams (D – Brooklyn) sponsored Introduction 119-D, a multi-layered bill which “would create the most comprehensive review of the root causes of police misconduct in the country by requiring bi-annual reporting…on lawsuits alleging police misconduct; regular studies…examining all sources of information on police misconduct…identifying patterns, and issuing recommendations on ways to reduce police misconduct; and a study…on determinations by judges that an officer’s testimony at a trial is not credible.”
Notice that Councilman Williams used the word “country” in his city-based bill. Mr. Williams did not expound on why he made a local bill sound as if it intends national scope. Language can make a huge difference. Perhaps his intent is to have NYC role-model progressive policing. Perhaps he has larger political aspirations and is setting the framework. Maybe he meant to write “apple” instead of “country.”
Duplicity
Despite what the NYC Council legislates, their efforts are duplicates of what is already before Congress. The Ice and CBP Body Camera Accountability Act (H.R. 1608) was submitted by Congressman Espaillat (D — NY) in March 2017.
Some language in Espaillat’s bill is “Such cameras must be on for an agent’s or officer’s entire shift.” If something of a private nature is captured by an ICE agent in the course of his/her lawful duties, then bring it to the office of Congressman Espaillat.
Further, his bill also includes punitive measures he feels sufficient: “An ICE or CBP agent or officer whose body camera does not record footage in violation of this bill shall be subject to furlough, reduction in pay or grade, or a suspension of up to 30 days. If a body camera does not record at a time when the camera is required to be active, DHS may not determine that the camera suffered a malfunction unless the agent or officer submits evidence sufficient to establish that a malfunction occurred.”
That sounds like a man whose efforts are misguided, ill-prioritized, out-of-bounds, and needlessly inflammatory.
There is also the ICE Body Camera Act of 2017 (H.R. 1497) introduced by Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (D — NY), also in March 2017. Rep. Clarke’s bill language counters Rep. Espaillat’s in that it recognizes non-continuous recording by ICE agents. Clarifying, her bill seeks to “establish policies and procedures for when deportation officers of Enforcement and Removal Operations of ICE should wear, activate, and deactivate body cameras.”
In its entire context to include officer safety protocols for all federal immigration officers, Rep Clarke’s bill acknowledges “Employing body cameras in police actions makes enforcement actions safer for law enforcement officers and members of the general public alike while restoring trust and accountability in the process.” Kudos for including officer safety principles.
Then she went the other way. The very last lines of Rep Clarke’s bill reads: “WITHHOLDING OF CERTAIN FUNDS. Any funds necessary to purchase, store, use, or maintain body cameras described in this Act shall be derived from funds made available to purchase new weapons for ICE officials.” Take funds already allocated away from essential ICE agents’ service weapons? Isn’t that like taking away a politician’s podium and mic?
Nevertheless, looking back at the local level, to think that all the progressivism by the NYPD still stares the sanctuary city concept in the face. And to think NYC leadership demands more to chronicle a problem they created and perpetuate. Bills, bills, bills. So much needless biting at the Big Apple, especially when the problem is not law enforcement.
In May 2017, the New York Daily News published the following excerpt from an article: “We are prepared to lead the resistance to Trump’s immoral anti-immigrant policies. We are a city of immigrants within a nation of immigrants. About one-third of New York City residents were born outside the United States. Their contributions are vital to our civil society.”
Rep. Espaillat, Rep. Clarke along with Letitia James, the Public Advocate for the City of New York, co-authored that particular piece.
