[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: "Don't ask, don't tell" extended to illegal aliens In a bizarre, yet somehow completely logical, recapitulation of President Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals in the military, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has issued his own "Don’t ask, don't tell" order with regard to illegal aliens seeking City services. Just as the left attacked Clinton's very liberal compromise policy as too harsh, the New York City Council is attacking Bloomberg's policy for the same reason. The story begins in 1989 when then-Mayor Edward Koch issued an executive order telling City agencies not to inform the INS about any person's citizenship status. Koch's principal argument for this outrageous-sounding policy was that if municipal employees told the INS about the illegal status of illegal aliens who had come into contact with them, the illegals would be frightened away from using hospitals, schools, and other services, thus exacerbating the city's many social problems. In 1996 the Congress banned local and state governments from withholding such information from the federal government. Mayor Giuliani then sued to block implementation of the federal law, but in 1999 a U.S. appeals court found against the City and ordered it to comply with federal law. As reported in the New York Sun,* Mayor Bloomberg's compromise answer to this long running controversy is to instruct most City workers--with the notable exception of the police--not to inquire about a person's immigration status at all; the police can still ask a person his status and tell the INS about it, but other City agencies cannot. Naturally, immigrant advocates argue that Bloomberg's partial "don't ask, don't tell" rule, though protecting illegals in their dealings with non-police related City services, would still leave them vulnerable in their contacts with police, making it less likely that illegals will report crimes. Thirty City Council members have called the mayor's actions "a step backward," and have proposed a bill overturning his executive order. So far, Bloomberg is holding firm. Patriots are naturally indignant at the idea of local governments helping illegal aliens evade the law. Unfortunately, the local governments' position is not without reason. Once illegals are residing in a city--and, moreover, in the huge numbers that exist today--the government has a legitimate interest in wanting them to go to doctors when they have contageous diseases, to send their children to school rather then leaving them on the street, to report rapes and murders to the police, and so on. The real culprit is not the local government, but the federal government, which has allowed the illegals into the U.S. in the first place and is almost entirely unserious about arresting and deporting them once they're here. If local governments are not to be put in a situation where they feel compelled to become non-cooperators and violators of federal law, then the federal government has got to start enforcing its own laws. *Errol Louis, "Bloomberg, Council at Odds on Immigration Policy," New York Sun, May 4, 2003. Posted by: Paul Cella on June 4, 2003 10:15 PM Koch’s decision was inexcusable, though not unforgivable. Only the heartless or the inane would fail to find mitigating circumstances in the policy. For instance, can you imagine a rule requiring NYC firemen to inquire as to immigration status? Can you imagine them actually heeding it? Similarly, there are other City workers employed in non-executive social services (ambulance drivers, paramedics, doctors, teachers, etc.). Those workers might say hey, let the cops ask the questions and make the arrests. So in one sense, all Koch did was give cover for what was already happening, and was going to continue to happen unless all City employees improbably became like the relentless, legalistic, inhumane Inspector Javert of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. Of course the most difficult situation is the reporting of crime, where the reporting must be made, presumably, to those charged with enforcing the law. We have to scorn the suggestion that merely immigrating illegally renders one subject to assaults, robbery, etc. Further, we must acknowledge the difficulties the City had and would have had with local enforcement of immigration law, e.g. where to jail the accused, who pays, etc. So what to do if a substantial portion of your city’s residents don’t: go to doctors when they have contageous diseases; don’t send their children to school rather then leaving them on the street; don’t report rapes and murders to the police; and so on all due to fear of deportation? I don’t know. I don’t have the solution. Very intelligent, this answer by Paul, and finishes with; I don’t know. I don’t have the solution.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||