----------empyre- soft-skinned space----------------------
On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, kyle mckinley wrote:
[...]
a quick side-note on this question of what sorts of reprisals Trump and
Sessions can leverage against "sanctuary cities." From what I've read they
are specifically talking at this point about refusing to disperse federal
funds to local police departments in jurisdictions deemed "sanctuaries" --
a threat which they might be able to follow through on as related to
enforcing federal immigration law. For those of us who have attempted to
expose and resist the ways that federal funds have been spent towards the
further militarization of local police forces, this threat might appear of
little concern. At the same time, it is worth acknowledging that the
threat is quite carefully gauged to place a divide between popular forces
demanding sanctuaries and municipal governments (and police depts) that
have attempted to honor that demand. Specifically, the "sanctuary city"
movement has often been buoyed (and legitimized for center-left / democrat
types) by the support received from police chiefs who fear that being
associated with ICE will cause immigrant communities to "distrust" the
police (a laughable, if politically useful, rationale). The point being
that while the ability of Sessions to dictate municipal policy might be
quite limited, this week's specific threats signal a ramping up of the
administration's understanding of how to attack local alliances,
particularly those tenuous ones which include elements of official power."
[...]
At least as far as I understand it in RI, the federal funds that would be
withdrawn would not be confined to the police; further, the police here
are not militarized. There's also no indication, again here, that "police
chiefs" "fear that being associated with ICE" etc. - this is just now
that's going on in Providence. You then talk about this as a "'laughable'
if politically useful rationale." I do think you're generalizing far too
much; the problems here with the police, for example, as I understand it,
are twofold - one has to do with pension funds and their relation to the
local and state government (the past mayor gave huge pensions which the
city has great difficulty dealing with), and the other is based (and here
I don't have the numbers) on a policeforce which is to the right to some
extent of the rest of the community. That said, in my discussions with the
police (who have fairly good relationships with the community), this
position you describe simply seems wrong. What might be a successful
strategy by the administration is simpler, giving rewards for anyone to
turn in potential "illegals" directly to the ICE, who will act
independently from the police.
The reason that all of this is of so much concern to me, is that it's far
too easy to paint the police one way or another, and that's part of the
problem we face; if we can't listen to one another, take these broad
sweeping positions apart, we're doomed to failure, I think, no matter how
incompetent the administration appears. I've been brutalized by the
police, for example, in my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, but I also know
that this was the result, there, of a particular policy and particular
police, and I still feel the police in our precinct (78th), with their
numerous community meetings, etc., were by and large on the side of their
constituents, as they should be.
In other words, think local/act global as much as think global/act local.
- Alan
_______________________________________________
empyre forum
empyre@lists.artdesign.unsw.edu.au
http://empyre.library.cornell.edu
