You see it on the internet all the time. It is sometimes posed as a question. Other times, it is quite declaratory. At its core is the hypocrisy that can often be found deeply embedded in government and protected by political correctness. It bubbled to the surface during the jailing of Kim Davis and it remains an open question today.
If, as most Americans believe, elected officials as well as any government official who swore an oath must uphold the law even if they strongly disagree with that law, how can New York City and several other large American cities ignore the federal law and declare themselves sanctuary cities for the purposes of not enforcing U.S. immigration and citizenship laws?
How can they refuse to notify the federal government when they come upon an illegal alien who has committed a local crime? How can they swear an oath — as all New York City officials do — to uphold the Constitution of the United States, only to ignore a whole set of federal laws because they do not like them?
I have read and heard the tortured attempts to explain this glaring inconsistency. They have fallen short because there is no justification for the double standard.
I did not agree with the Supreme Court’s decision on same sex marriage. I thought it should have been left up to the states. Regardless, the decision was made and must be obeyed, which in my opinion makes Kim Davis wrong. It’s the rule of law. And in my view it equally makes Bill de Blasio, Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and all sanctuary city officials (of which there is a growing number in the U.S.) hypocrites and equally wrong.
To her credit, Republican-Conservative Assemblymember Nicole Malliotakis made this point recently on social media. So have many frustrated Americans who have been expressing their displeasure on immigration and sanctuary city policies during the build-up to next year’s presidential election.
It is insane that the build-up to the West Indian Day Parade known as J’Ouvert that sees shootings, stabbings, robberies and all sorts of violence requiring the deployment of over 1,500 police officers occurs each year with an apparent acceptance that police and citizens will be put in harm’s way. What else can one conclude with the track record this event has produced over the past 10 years?
Something needs to be done. Considering that almost a full citywide patrol tour is assigned to a four-square-mile area of one borough and there is still considerable violence, it would seem to me that assigning more police is not the solution. And considering that even with intense participation of local elected officials, clergy and community groups, violence remains a major problem, the solution must be found in new strategies.
Some say the parade is not the cause. The violence is mostly in the two-day, Mardi-Gras-type lead-up event. But that is a lead-up to the parade, so the parade committee needs to take a degree of responsibility and actively recommend ways to reduce the violence.
I think part of the problem is that in the new norm under the present city administration, more violent criminals are able to stay out of jail because of the near elimination of stop, question and frisk.
Of course, even with stop, question and frisk, this event had problems, but as an overall policing strategy, I feel there were more plusses then minuses in its contribution to public safety.
A community curfew should also be considered next year as part of the permitting process for the parade. Possibly a 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. street curfew could be implemented. At least it would help address the randomness of the violence which this year was particularly bad.
And if it cannot be made safer next year and the violence continues, we would need to give serious consideration to simply not permitting the parade and working with the community to come up with other ways to celebrate an important heritage event.