A Cop’s-Eye View: Identity Politics Behind Dangerous Sanctuary Policies

(The fourth in an on-going series of articles from a police officer actively serving in a sanctuary county outside Washington, D.C.)

There is an issue at the heart of the illegal immigration debate that I don’t believe receives nearly the attention it should: the reemergence of identity politics in our country, and the Left’s sanctimonious attempted manipulation of a section of Americans to support their side of it.  I don’t mean a war of bullets, necessarily, although we have some of that, already.

While this may sound contrived, it is deeply saddening and somewhat alarming to watch American citizens ​still ​fighting with one another over race and ethnic background. If I believe what I see on television, cops are all racists and illegal immigrants are just another group of their unfortunate “victims.”

The message this is intended to convey, and who is intended to receive it, is no secret. Nor is the political alliance it is intended to inspire. That message is that even routine law enforcement is inherently biased, which has led to radical new laws such as New York’s that turn all but the most violent offenders loose without bail, or sanctuary policies that go out of their way to shield criminal aliens from removal.

What then, is the end game of those who support sanctuary policies?  To foment revolutionary social, economic and political changes that are neither sought nor desired by the American people?  To make citizens of individuals who have already proven they can and will violate American laws?  To undermine social order and the rule of law?  Like many of you, I want answers.

These same sanctuary jurisdictions also shower illegal aliens with access to a whole range of social benefits, at the expense of taxpayers and others who need government assistance. These jurisdictions provide housing, food stamps, prescription cards and medical care to some of these same individuals, while hands-off law enforcement policies invite criminals to take up residence.

Where do these idiotic policies (and the dangerous sense of entitlement they instill) ultimately lead?  If you follow the international illegal immigration crisis, you’ll certainly be familiar with the stories about cities in Great Britain and France being off limits to the police.  That is to say, the non-citizen residents of these enclaves have made it so dangerous for the police to respond there, that they simply do not. 

If these phenomena were to be replicated in the United States, they would clearly not take root in the affluent suburbs where the average local government “leader” lives, or it would not be allowed to stand. The lawlessness would disproportionally affect poor and working class communities.

These infiltration of foreign criminal organization that feel protected by identity politics-driven asylum policies are an inevitable result. The only place police shouldn’t be allowed is on your property or in your business without cause, and we need to get away from the ridiculous notion that being here illegally somehow ​ does not constitute cause, even for a deputy in a one-man Sheriff’s department in a town of 500.

However, I don’t believe the collective voice against this perversion of common sense and our ideals can come from law enforcement, especially not in today’s anti-police climate.  There’s not much we do anymore that isn’t picked apart to the point that good cops are more interested in protecting their pensions and freedom than their community. That notwithstanding, if enforcing illegal immigration suddenly became a mandate of my department, it would not result in an outrageous additional number of deportations.  Patrol cops don’t have the time necessary to devote to the process.  That said, when a cop comes across an illegal immigrant as the result of an arrest or a positive wanted check, the transfer to ICE should be automatic. Deportation should be unquestionable.

What should not happen is the release of a violent illegal immigrant criminal back on to American streets so that he may rape and murder a 92-year-old woman.  New York Mayor Bill De Blasio is once again complicit, as his policies allowed exactly that to happen, a few days ago. New York does have a handle on what’s important, though, banning the terms “illegal” and “illegal alien”.  Should you dare use either term in a manner that might loosely be defined as threatening, both of which evidently being profanities now, you are subject to a fine of up to $250,000. 

New York will fine you for calling something what it is.  How do you most effectively control a debate and rig the outcome, if not through language?  In the last eight years, we’ve been overloaded with what we can and cannot say, from the same people who extol the virtues of the Constitution. I suppose if the word goes away, so does the problem.  That being the case, may I suggest we all stop using the term “Alzheimer’s Disease”?

When will our government stop the global virtue-signaling and start working for its citizens? The idea of putting America first (as opposed to America only) has, in my lifetime, gone from a patriotic statement to one of racist xenophobia.  The public sentiment that the nation protect the vital interests of its citizens never changed, only how it was defined for us by an elitist political establishment and an increasingly shrill cohort of identity politicians who seek to fracture the nation along racial and ethnic lines.

About Author


The latest guest opinion pieces from FAIR.

Comments are closed.