By David Stanczak
Public policy is best formed when unencumbered by logical imprecision and emotion. A case in point is the current controversy over immigrants, more particularly the proposal that the Bloomington City Council adopt a resolution declaring that Bloomington is a “welcoming city” to immigrants.
Proponents are quick to explain that a “welcoming city” is not the same thing as a “sanctuary city.” The distinction wasn’t clearly explained, but a “welcoming city” appears to be a “sanctuary city lite,” offering all the welcoming flavor of a sanctuary city but none of the calories of a shutoff of federal funds.
The proposal purports to deal with “immigrants.” But that monolithic term includes at least four categories of people: those who came to the U.S. and have become citizens; those who are here legally, whether on a path to citizenship or otherwise; those who are here illegally, but are otherwise law-abiding; and those who are here illegally and who commit crimes.
Two features of the recent crackdown by the Trump administration are significant: first, it is not some wild idea spawned by a crypto-Nazi, but merely enforcement of laws duly enacted by Congress, which laws constitute the law of the land; second, the aggressive deportation program is directed at the fourth category alone: those who are committing crimes, like the infamous MS-13 gang from El Salvador, many of whom came in under an Obama program to take in youths. The pedigree of MS-13 can be ascertained from any Long Island resident whose community has been turned into a human chop shop by MS-13 and their machetes. Yet the resolution declares them equally welcome in Bloomington as the other three categories of immigrants.
The term “immigrant” conjures up visions of the Statue of Liberty and the “poor and huddled masses yearning to be free,” like my saintly great-grandmother, who could barely speak a word of English. But the proposed resolution does nothing for people like her or anyone else in the first three categories of immigrants; it only helps those in the fourth class, the criminals, to whom I say, “not in my town.”
The emotionally loaded term “immigrant” as used in the resolution is imprecise because, either ignorantly or deliberately, it doesn’t distinguish among the four classes,. The term “bear” includes both a teddy bear and a grizzly, but anyone who treats both the same is a fool.
David Stanczak, a Forum commentator since 1995, came to Bloomington in 1971. He served as the City of Bloomington’s first full-time legal counsel for over 18 years, before entering private practice. He is currently employed by the Snyder Companies and continues to reside in Bloomington with his family.
The opinions expressed within WJBC’s Forum are solely those of the Forum’s author, and are not necessarily those of WJBC or Cumulus Media Inc.
