“Law enforcement officers are not obligated to dress down to appease a criminal demographic, and Congresswoman Velazquez playing fashion police is nothing less than insulting and arrogant…”
Here we go with more zany politicizing and bizarre propositioning, specifically against federal law enforcement. Seeking to soothe and appease the so-called “tensions” of America’s illegal immigrant population, Representative Nydia M. Velázquez (D – NY), who represents the “sanctuary city” of Brooklyn, NY, wrote a bill to have federal agents remove the word “police” from any attire they wear during duty performance. With this kind of outlandish philosophy, we will no longer have any marked police officers patrolling our streets, negating a founded technique for which the police exist: to deter crime.
In her press release, Congresswoman Velázquez wrote the following as her basis for the bill: “The ability of an ICE or CBP agent to pose as local police officers is a flaw in our system and that’s why I’ve introduced this bill. Instead of keeping our communities safe, this practice fuels fear, undermines trust and ultimately further marginalizes our immigrant neighbors.” She also wrote that federal cops donning the word police is a “deceptive” practice, causing people to think they are local cops, implying they are posing as city cops and not as federal immigration enforcement officials. I have a one-word rebuttal for this: semantics. Cops are cops! I suspect policing a sanctuary city such as NYC (implicit non-enforcement of immigration laws) is what she is alluding to.
They are police officers, so “pose” is the wrong word to an insulting degree; performing is the right word. Whether perceived as federal or local cops, acting under the color of law with nationwide jurisdiction means federal agents can police any locale to get the job done. And since when does the “practice” of policing sacrifice safe communities? Safe from apprehension is what I interpret from her statement. And it is unquestionably illegal when anyone—members of US Congress included—aids and abets a fugitive from justice.
The only one who “marginalizes our immigrant neighbors” is an illegal immigrant—and politicians who support their fugitive status. Illegitimacy in any context inherently marginalizes; here, it is the inability to partake wholeheartedly because of illegal status. The police did not cause that factor and are only in a position to make it right.
Seemingly lost on the mind of Congresswoman Velázquez, it is imperative our society has “marked” police officials covertly and overtly combating criminal behavior while ensuring citizens’ safety with police presence. They’re cops, not phantoms. Some want cops out in the open and not perched behind billboards enforcing traffic laws. Now some want police to be unmarked to soften the tension of would-be violators. What next, have cops arrive in neon-colored taxis so the fruits of criminal activity can be swiftly flushed?
The assertion that federal agents marked with the word “police” is intimidating makes sense, particularly for those who are guilty of illegal presence on our soil. Illegal immigrants’ reluctance to aid police for fear of deportation (an unmistakable admission of guilt) is an intriguing equation. There is no positive gain in one negative creating another negative. Responsibility is utterly abandoned, like fleeing one’s nation before ensuring legal permission to enter another.
Law enforcement officers are not obligated to dress down to appease a criminal demographic, and Congresswoman Velazquez playing fashion police is nothing less than insulting and arrogant.
Notwithstanding the already perilous job they do, why should our police officers further endanger themselves by performing unmarked, in effect quashing their official capacity? What are the risks? Why are we forcing Lady Justice to the curb instead of enforcing justice principles?
This bill is easily construed as a constituent-building campaign, garnering votes while trading off the safety, dignity, and nobility of our cops. Are unmarked law enforcers really going to accomplish much? Are unknown strangers at the door a more welcoming concept? Will illegal immigrants be that inclined to permit entry to anyone casually dressed knocking at the door? Rhetorical points abound.
Of similar import, California legislation passed on April 6th solidifies protections for illegal immigrants by prohibiting cops from detaining suspected illegal aliens. Written by Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D – South Los Angeles), in California Assembly Bill 493 (AB493), here again we see elected officials shackling the dutiful efforts of police personnel while violators are funneled away from facing justice.
The measure of elected arrogance is outrageously stretched. These baseless and anti-public safety stunts are exemplified by yet another heinous incident perpetrated by an illegal alien harbored in a sanctuary city, free-roaming, with ill intent and no compunction about violence. This is added to the statistics of crimes against citizens who belong here inflicted by illegal immigrants who do not, offering malice instead of a “thank you.” On that note, I am unwaveringly certain those victims would be elated to see the word police across the duty-wear of an approaching savior.
Hindering Law Enforcement Objectives
No matter how murky the thought processes are among some politicos who seem to savor harboring fugitives from justice (complicit and unlawful), it is clear they have no intent to cooperate with law enforcement and are abjectly taunting tenets of the US Constitution. As days pass, efforts to circumvent federal agents’ duties to locate, process, and deport illegal immigrants transcend. Federal cops entering sanctuary cities become hindered at every corner, vilified at every pass, prevented from performing their oath-bound tasks. In that regard, the immigration fiasco festers. Nevertheless, immigration enforcement persists, as it should, thanks to courageous men and women in police uniforms representing citizens’ rights.
Interestingly, Ms.Velázquez also alluded that her bill would make communities more safe? How so? Federal agents not wearing the word police may encourage immigrants to aid police by cooperating and supplying information involving crimes. Oddly, “civil duty to report” is one factor; yet, illegal status counters that possibility. Ultimately, Velázquez’s bill boldly asserts that if federal cops do not do things her way it “makes our communities less safe.” Again, we see an accusing political finger pointing at the police, laying blame instead of justly aiming it at fugitives on the lam.
Rights of the People vs. People Who Have No Right to Be Here
American citizens expect their police forces to encounter, engage, and enforce our laws. Just as citizens pay tax dollars for public safety, part and parcel dollars are funding programs empowering folks without legal right to be here. Americans presume police have a handle on affairs of public safety and interest. However, to the detriment of constitutional expectations and legal values, politicos keep our cops stumbled by trip-wiring their movements (asinine laws), blocking legitimate police efforts.
Cops are not in the business of public safety to soften the enforcement of laws. They are in a profession whereby society expects them to fulfill their role by upholding the Constitution—the same document Congresswoman Velázquez swore allegiance to when elected to office.
Police of any stripe announcing lawful presence and intent to investigate engenders police markings. The right and responsibility to conduct investigations remains, and it will always be an officer safety issue and police protocol to make that authority clear, not conceal it. On its face, the bill authored by Rep. Velázquez amounts to a gimme for illegal immigrants and a slap in the face for cops.
As a hypothetical, let’s assume Ms. Velázquez gets her way and ICE and Border Patrol agents are prohibited from donning attire with the word “police” stitched visibly. An ICE agent knocks on a door to investigate, his authority unadvertised, and gets shot by a skittish illegal immigrant for whatever reason.
Criminal justice punishments are increased when the victim is a law enforcement officer—crimes against justice—so denying the police insignia denies police (as victims) the rights to see their assailants punished to the fullest extent allowed by law. Generally, a simple battery in which a civilian is the victim is levied a misdemeanor. Conversely, battery on a law enforcement officer is an automatic felony carrying stiffer penalties. Minus police insignia, an assailant accosting an unmarked federal agent gets away with much more than if the police were clearly identifiable.
In Florida, the Battery on a LEO statute holds that the perpetrator “knowingly committing an assault or battery upon a law enforcement officer” who is “wearing a uniform that bears at least one patch or emblem that is visible at all times that clearly identifies the employing agency and that clearly identifies the person as a…law enforcement officer” shall be subjected to increased classifications regarding punitive measures. Notice the word “knowingly.” Also note the words “clearly” and “visible” and “identifies” were used in the statute unsparingly. I believe a certain lawmaker in NY somehow missed (omitted) considering such pertinent language relating to federal cops’ protections.
Without police insignia, “officer safety” is forfeited; most folks are less inclined to accost when they see a clearly identified police officer (perhaps fully aware of the previous point regarding increased punitive sentences). That last example underscores why undercover police work remains a highly dangerous assignment. Why add to the peril? Why throw cops under the bus instead of favoring their efforts to evict criminal elements?
It is the right of every police officer to don the police insignia and badge, just as it is the right of Congresswoman Velázquez to wear her official congressional lapel pin on Capitol Hill or wherever she is dreaming up bills such as this. Or should we demand she remove her pin because it represents legitimate authority to make laws that unsettle me because I may be in violation of immigration laws and hiding like a mole in a hole?
Then there is the educational sector, with the likes of a California professor who purportedly incited the lynching of President Donald Trump and the executions of Republicans while simultaneously denouncing enforcement of immigration laws. How on earth did we stoop to such a low?
Protecting criminals of any stripe should never be en vogue. Police officials who earned their badge and “police” stripes are categorically first in the order of priority and integrity. Like a rotten tomato, this bill insults all senses and beckons composting.
The only thing “deceptive” here is the guise under which Congresswoman Velázquez authored a bill—to help harbor violators of US immigration laws. Agreed?
