President Trump appears determined to fulfill his campaign promises. That is an admirable goal: American voters are tired of politicians who promise one thing on the campaign trail and deliver something else after they’re elected.
But when it comes to politics, the end doesn’t always justify the means. Our Constitution prescribes a process for political action, and following that process is more important than achieving the results one may desire.
Consider the case of sanctuary cities. Sanctuary cities are cities that don’t allow local funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws or inquire about one’s immigration status. Why? Public officials in these cities say they have better relations with the Hispanic community when people aren’t afraid of being deported.
But many Trump supporters view undocumented immigrants as criminals who are free-loading on our public services while lowering wages and taking jobs away from U.S. citizens.
During the campaign, Trump promised to put an end to sanctuary cities by using the “power of the purse,” saying he would deny all federal funds to cities that refused to use local resources to enforce federal immigration laws.
But there’s a problem with this approach. It’s called “federalism.” Federalism defines the relationship between the national government and the state governments. Unfortunately, many people don’t understand how it works.
I recall as a teenager seeing a graphic in my high school textbook on government that suggested there’s a pecking order in which state governments are subordinate to the national government. But that is not accurate. Under federalism, the national and state governments have equal standing but different areas of responsibility.
For example, under the Constitution, certain functions are assigned to the federal government, such as the power to coin money, regulate interstate commerce, declare war, raise and maintain armed forces, enforce our borders and regulate immigration. All functions not delegated to the national government are reserved for the states without interference by the national government.
But over time the scope of federal control and regulation has continually expanded, largely through the granting and withholding of federal funds.
For example, public education was once strictly a state and local function. But when the Soviet Union launched its Sputnik satellite in 1957, beating the U.S. into space, the nation was alarmed and the space race began. In the 1960 presidential election, John Kennedy used the space race to justify expansion of federal aid to education while Nixon and the Republicans sought to keep education a local and state function.
Kennedy won and federal money poured into the schools. By 1976, there were more teachers at the Democrat convention than any members of any other occupation. And in 1979, President Carter rewarded the teacher unions by creating the federal Dept. of Education, even though the federal government has no constitutional role in education.
Today, the federal government is involved in all aspects of our schools, from the content of our textbooks to what our kids eat for lunch — and now even to the point of mandating transgender bathrooms. How did the federal government gain so much control over education? By threatening to withhold federal funds unless schools complied with its mandates.
Do we really want to go down that road with local law enforcement? If the federal government can withhold federal funds unless local police use their resources to enforce federal laws, it’s tantamount to a federal takeover of local law enforcement.
Part of the reason the founding fathers wanted to keep the national government out of state and local affairs was they wanted states to be laboratories for new policies. They believed that if a state adopted a disastrous new policy, at least it would not be a catastrophe for everyone. (Pay attention, Obamacare fans.) On the other hand, if a state’s new program worked well, other states could adopt their ideas and adjust them to their own needs. (Let’s see how legalized marijuana turns out for Colorado.)
Someone once said “the problem with democracy is it takes too damn much time.” I think it was Churchill; at least it sounds like Churchill. Sometimes dictatorship seems much more efficient than democracy. But then your rights and liberties are subject to the dictator’s whim. The point is that when it comes to government, the process is important, and the end does not justify the means.
One may be concerned about illegal immigration. But if the federal government in unable or unwilling to do its job when it comes to maintaining our borders and controlling immigration, should it be able to compel states and local governments to use their funds and resources to assist them? If city officials who refuse to assist the federal government are following bad policy, let them suffer the consequences at the ballot box. Imposing federal control over local law enforcement is not the remedy.
Comments are closed.