“Isn’t that akin to the DoJ shooting itself in the foot and asking local cops to tweeze the bullet fragment with chop sticks?”
Over coffee this morning, I pondered the seeming collision course of police reform, decrees levied by the Obama Administration DoJ, and the feds withholding funds from sanctuary cities/counties from which cops are shortchanged in the process.
Momentum behind President Trump and the Department of Justice (DoJ) withholding federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities rolls forward unimpeded. In theory, severing funds to local governments is a tactic to gain compliance from city and county leaders who continue to harbor illegal immigrants, the goal of which is to sway locales from claiming “sanctuary city” status. But what happens when any sanctuary city whose police force is under federal consent decree falters because of the shortchanging policy of the US government? What then? Isn’t that akin to the DoJ shooting itself in the foot and asking local cops to tweeze the bullet fragment with chop sticks?
Violation of America’s immigration laws remains a national security dilemma, and immigration enforcement is a factor of which I am a strong proponent. As a Constitutionalist with a police career behind me, I am a proponent of law enforcement officers also, for they are the responsible parties enforcing the laws of our Constitution, including immigration statutes. In that light, cops in sanctuary cities or counties are caught in the clutches of the political dynamics caused by local officials who are opposed to immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal agents.
Baltimore PD Remands Consent Decree
Mere days ago, a federal judge blocked the DoJ’s request to “pause” endorsement of the Baltimore PD consent decree motioned by the Obama Administration. Judge James K. Bredar signed the federal consent decree into play, at the behest of Baltimore police executives and a city government that welcomes any efforts to reform its police force. As of late, President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice, under the tutelage of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, sought to re-examine decrees set in motion by former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Obama Administration.
Purportedly, the Trump Administration wants to evaluate the efficacy of such decrees and ensure each one is optimal for police officers steered by oversight. On April 7, 2017, Attorney Gemeral Sessions cited his discontent with the Baltimore police reform decree, citing it may make the city “less safe” and reduce the legal authority and powers of its cops. In essence, the concern is that Baltimore cops will be too corralled to be effective crime fighters.
Of import in my mind is the connection, if any, to Baltimore being a sanctuary city and the feds withholding funds to cities with such a status. Will cops suffer because of funding shortages? Will withholding federal grants from sanctuary cities translate to under-budgeted police and thus inefficiency? Cop shops have endured decades of making do with what they have, even when fiscally deficient. However, as a retired policeman I can tell you having diminished resources does not bode well for capability, and engenders stress, not a healthy ingredient in the context of enforcing laws.
Is the Department of Justice looking at Baltimore as a sanctuary city from which funds will be severed and considering how the fiscal shortages may impact cops there? It bears repeating that street cops are typically locked and loaded to enforce laws, but elected leadership may hamper those efforts, and street cops shouldn’t be penalized for this. This is where slicing the pie seems relevant and befitting: give cops what they need to achieve criminal justice, despite the sanctuary jurisdiction in which they are operating.
Notwithstanding the consent decree, perhaps Baltimore will prosper under the watchful eyes of a federally-appointed monitor of police practices, hopefully mimicking the continued success of the Seattle PD and its federal oversight since 2012.
Seattle PD Sues US Government
The Seattle, WA, police department has been under the watchful eyes of a federal monitor since 2012. Recent reports are that Seattle PD has endured, prospered, and is largely reformed under the imposition of a DoJ consent decree. Incidentally, Seattle is another so-called sanctuary city which has filed suit against the Trump Administration and the DoJ for withholding federal dollars to compel Seattle to disavow its sanctuary city philosophy.
In March 2017, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray filed a lawsuit against the federal government, publicly decrying the “threats” from President Trump and the DoJ, citing how shortchanging his city also cripples its services to the public, according to a Fox News report. Mayor Murray also claimed severing funds engenders defaults to ending subsidies for citizens which could lead to crime spikes. His argument is not invalid, but again, the question is the motivation of the DoJ which asserts its concerns over officer safety and crime-fighting measures. Interestingly, Seattle PD’s stats indicate a huge drop in the use of excessive force incidents, not much increase in crime rates, and a spike in officer injuries. That last part is cause for concern, and underscores Attorney General Sessions’ concerns. Are police reforms trading-off officer safety to accomplish goals? If so, withholding federal dollars from certain jurisdictions may play a dangerous role in the larger context of the DoJ compelling sanctuary cities, in effect placing cops in undue peril.
Albeit ambiguous, Attorney General Sessions’ intent to withhold funds has people unnerved. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden (D – OR) expressed their concerns pertaining to shorting money for law enforcement operations. In a joint press release publicized March 27, 2017, both senators cited how threatening it is and how counterproductive it would be for the feds to diminish funds to sanctuary cities, the results of which squash imperative criminal justice programs and hinder vital police functions.
DoJ Agenda Looking After Cops?
A recent Department of Justice press conference in Nogales, Arizona entailed Attorney General Sessions speaking to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents about initiating stringent protocols to help them combat illegal entry across US borders. Sessions laid out a new blueprint which seeks to end catch-and-release rituals set forth under the Obama Administration. He also mandated each state’s attorney general to appoint a person who will be solely relegated to ensuring immigration enforcement interactions among law enforcement agencies in their respective state.
The unveiling of this initiative would certainly seem to sew the loose ends we have been seeing, pertaining to sanctuary city jurisdictions proclaiming non-cooperation with federal agents and immigration laws. Will the DoJ’s mandates further national security objectives and bring all cops to the enforcement table, or create more divisiveness among locales cradling illegal immigrants? Will President Trump and Attorney General Sessions loosen the grip on federal funds should local governments fall into compliance with immigration enforcement?
President Trump’s campaign echo embraced law enforcement. I still hear that echo. And I have high hopes for the police personnel in any sanctuary city, trusting their crime-fighting mechanisms are not garaged due to cessation of operating funds by good ol’ Uncle Sam who purports to support them. After all, there is nothing vague about President Donald Trump’s Standing Up For Our law Enforcement Community credo.
If, upon reading this article, you gleaned that I am defending police who are jammed in the middle of these politically-stringed dynamics, you are absolutely correct and sharp-minded. We can credit your coffee, but I’d rather trophy you for reading acutely. Coffee or not, do you have any perspective(s) of your own pertaining to this national security matter? What’s your take on any or all of these elements?
