Federal agents stand near the site of a shooting on Jan. 24 in Minneapolis.
Luzerne County Council’s objections to a proposed resolution regarding the use of deadly force by federal immigration enforcement officers were justified, and that should frighten anyone who believes in the fundamentals of American Democracy.
“We have seen the administration federally go after the people that go against it,” Councilman Steve Coslett said, noting he has spoken to three local police chiefs who did not support the resolution. “So let’s stay in our quiet corner. If it comes to this area, we’ll address it as it comes. It is not here yet, thank God, but at some point I’m sure it will creep in. Then let’s put things out there that have teeth, have bite.”
Coslett said, rightly, that voters want Council to focus on infrastructure, county finances and attracting jobs. He worried that such a resolution could draw U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) here “just because we did this.”
Councilwoman Joanna Bryn Smith voiced a similar view. “I’m concerned that this is just grandstanding and that we will shine a spotlight where I’m not sure that we want it shined right now. I don’t know that it’s fair for us to make that decision for other people.”
Councilman Chris Belles worried that the resolution could prompt the federal government to withhold funding or “draw down” on the county, potentially putting “a target on the back of every member of our immigrant community.
“My thinking is that we should not assume these risks for what amounts to a pretty insignificant moral statement of concern.”
The resolution itself seems far more innocuous than those comments would suggest. It would urge the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to ensure the use of deadly force is subject to “prompt, independent and transparent investigation.” It also asks the state’s Congressional delegation to exercise its oversight authority to review federal immigration enforcement use-of-force policies and consider appropriate measures to enhance transparency and accountability. Both ideas should be easily embraced.
Council comments made it clear that the problem is not in what the resolution says, but in what it could provoke. The current administration in Washington has shown that cutting off funds, launching investigations and sending in federal agents may all be used as tools in pursuing its agenda.
While we respect those who may believe that behavior is somehow justified, it’s essential to appreciate the reality of recent actions: They succeed more through fear than through persuasion. That was made clear by the concerns voiced by Council.
From its very roots, this nation was built on the notion that we should not fear government. The creation of checks and balances —the idea that those in power inevitably answer to regular people, the basic belief in a jury of peers, the layers of local, state and federal courts designed to assure that justice gets served, the creation of “co-equal” branches of government, the Bill of Rights that began with the guarantee of free speech.
It was all designed to end centuries, even millennia, of rule by strength, by oppression, by wealth, by fear. The fact that the council felt a genuine need to debate the possibility of retribution over such a simple, humane resolution should concern everyone.
Local journalism matters, and your support makes it possible. You can help sustain this work by making a donation or choosing one of our subscription options. Subscribers enjoy valuable benefits, including full access to our e-edition, a reduced ad experience on timesleader.com, and more.
Your support helps ensure independent, high-quality local news remains available today and for future generations. Thank you for standing with local journalism.