Three weeks ago, Palm Beach County’s largest city unanimously declared West Palm Beach a “Welcoming City” prohibiting city employees from assisting Federal Law Enforcers in deportation matters unless specifically required to by state or federal law or courts. The W.P. B. resolution, not a city law but a policy statement, passed after more than an hour of public comment in a commission chambers packed mostly with supporters but also with some pointed opposition. (See Palm Beach Post, Thursday March 30, 2017 by Tony Doris – Staff Writer) This action by West Palm Beach follows similar policies demonstrated by the Palm Beach County Sherriff’s Department, the Palm Beach County School Board and other municipalities. Presented below is a comment for Boca Raton residents and elected officials to consider. Author Allan Ward is a firm voice in opposition to the WPB policy direction and warns against Boca Raton ever considering such a policy.
Al Zucaro, Publisher
People who want to establish “sanctuary” or “welcoming” cities or counties or states destroy the social compact between citizens and their governments that has existed in the U.S. for more than two-hundred years. Partisans of aiding and abetting illegal aliens offer only social destruction. When a government utterly refuses to protect its citizens to become an agency of extortion, it loses its legitimacy.
Practically, as proven in Florida and elsewhere in the world, serious crime will increase. According to the U.S. Dept. of Justice in 2015, illegal aliens, who are 3.5%% of the U.S. population, commit 12% of the murders, 16% of the drug trafficking and 20% of the kidnappings. Robbery and rape, gratuitous drive-by shootings and anonymous knifings, and molestation and murder, will characterize the South Florida culture even more.
Boca Raton will not keep its immunity from it. Drug gangs will operate more freely and continue to corrupt neighborhoods and the legal system. The governments of existing “sanctuary” cities have made no effective changes in their enforcement or behavior even after repeated violent crimes against innocent citizens.
People have wisely responded by arming themselves against crime because they recognize that they have final responsibility to protect themselves. Governments have not performed their fundamental duty to maintain a safe society. “No-go” zones exist in various cities in the United States and Europe. Citizens pay taxes for a government that represents them, not one that extorts their money just to spend it on office-holders’ particular welfare programs to aid and enable illegal aliens who do not legally belong here.
Historically, private charity has proven overwhelmingly effective in helping people improve their lives—not the plantation system of government welfare. Instead of aiding and enabling lawbreakers and criminals, government should protect citizens not by subsidizing illegal aliens but by requiring employers to use E-verify to prove new employees’ legal eligibility for employment.
Moreover, with the federal government now oriented to enforce existing law, some federal funding for local governments and programs will be at risk in ‘sanctuary’ and ’welcoming’ cities. Ultimately, this will be good for reducing the growth and grasp of government, but in the near-term, these governments will find that tightening is tough and beneficiaries and friends in patronage jobs will scream and throw tantrums. Failing newspapers will ‘expose the misery’ to try to recover readers, but the money spigot will shrink for sanctuary cities, counties, and states. Street theater will not bring it back.
Illegal alien partisans may have convinced themselves that they hold some type of H. D. Thoreau conscientious objection philosophy of the 1840’s, but they err. (H.D. Thoreau spent his night in jail, his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson paid Thoreau’s tax, and Thoreau then got out of jail.) Their presumed moral superiority only exhibits their arrogance that reveals their moral inferiority. Current proponents of “sanctuary” and “welcoming” cities actually hold to an anarchist variant of John C. Calhoun’s Nullification Theory of the Constitution of the late 1820’s and 1830’s by adding municipal sovereignty. Calhoun’s theory claimed that a state has the right to nullify and invalidate any federal law that the state deems unconstitutional; thus, he asserted that the individual states had the final sovereignty to determine the limit of the power of the federal government. The 1861-1865 War fought over this issue ended with a convincing victory by the U.S. government over the eleven states that had seceded to form a Confederacy. That military victory settled the federal supremacy issue in favor of the federal government until present arguments revived the issue. The Confederate flag represented the nullification losers.
Marijuana proponents hold similar views, and only federal non-enforcement of its laws enables the current creeping de-criminalization of it.
The federal government assumes primary enforcement of immigration law, and federal supremacy always preempts state and local laws. Federal force has repeatedly overwhelmed attempts at local sovereignty. Partisans of illegal aliens who propose “sanctuary” and “welcoming” local jurisdictions to protect them from federal enforcement only encourage law-breaking, anarchy, and disrespect for the entire concept of law and a civil society based on law. City and county officeholders cannot pick and choose which laws to enforce depending on their temperaments and feelings. Local government officials need to perform their Constitutional duties as elected and employed—and not substitute their personal ideologies for the law.
Unlike Palm Beach County’s largest city, West Palm Beach, Boca Raton has not, nor does it seem likely to, adopted a ‘sanctuary’ or ‘welcoming’ city policy. For all the suggested reasons above, this is good thing for the residents of Boca Raton.