NY Dems aim to de-mask ICE agents to scare them off their raids — NOT to protect the public
One backer, Sen. Patricia Fahy, fumes that ICE is 'operating like masked militias' and 'paramilitary secret police' and so must be reined in.
Nonsense: The awkwardly and misleadingly named Mandating End to Lawless Tactics Act is actually little more than an attempt to thwart immigration enforcement by making ICE agents fear for their personal safety.
It joins similar efforts in other states and in Congress to 'unmask ICE.'
In the words of GOP Sen. George Borrello, 'This bill is driven by ideology, not a genuine concern for public safety.'
The Left's hypocrisy on this issue is staggering.
Progressives — including many of the MELT Act's supporters in the Legislature — have opposed mask bans for criminal suspects and rioters, such as Nassau County's common-sense ban, which has exceptions for law enforcement.
Yet for all their sympathy for those involved with the criminal-justice system, they have no qualms about painting cops as criminals and subjecting them to mask bans.
If these lawmakers truly cared about public safety, they'd go after the rioters and real criminals who've routinely hidden their identities to evade accountability following the 2020 George Floyd unrest and Oct. 7 demonstrations.
ICE and other law enforcement don't mask up because they have machinations of becoming a 'paramilitary secret police.' They do so to keep themselves and their families safe from multinational gangs such as Tren de Aragua.
Facial-recognition technology, now rapidly improving due to AI, gives anyone — including nefarious actors like Antifa or cartel members — the ability to reverse image search the unmasked face of an ICE agent.
They can then obtain and post their names, addresses and information about their relatives to social media.
While the Justice Department can prosecute those responsible for such doxxing, it is nonetheless a frequent threat to agents and loved ones.
Addresses of hotels where agents stay during operations are routinely spread on social media so that protesters can harass them.
Agitators are so well-organized that an app was created to report and rush to ICE raid locations, as seen in Los Angeles riots this year.
The Department of Homeland Security has reported an 830% increase in assaults on ICE personnel this year, attributed to an increase in doxxing and rhetoric against agents.
Worse still, even if the MELT Act passes, its effects would be largely symbolic.
Lawmakers like Fahy clearly don't understand federalism. Because the Constitution gives federal law precedence, any federal regulation would immediately supersede the MELT Act if passed, rendering it largely symbolic.
Additionally, federal agents are immune from state criminal prosecution when acting within the scope of their authority.
The MELT Act would also require that all law enforcement agents display their names or badge numbers on their uniforms, hamstringing the plainclothes units of local New York police departments, which now must only provide this information verbally.
Some of the bill's supporters mention a more realistic point that masking without wearing identification might allow for easier impersonation of ICE officers. They might also argue that a lack of masking deters possible police misconduct, despite the widespread use of body cameras.
Those are valid concerns. But there are ways to protect the public even with masked law enforcement.
Public-education campaigns should remind residents that ICE agents and other law enforcement are legally required to identify themselves as police as soon as it is practicable and safe to do so.
New Yorkers under arrest should keep in mind their constitutional protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.
Masked or not, imposters can still pose as ICE or any other law-enforcement officers.
Requiring names or badge numbers does nothing if there's no reliable way to immediately verify the person's legitimacy.
The answer isn't a largely symbolic law to neuter real agents; it's to strengthen identification through local cooperation.
The only way to fully reassure New Yorkers is cooperation between local police and ICE, whether via collaborative task forces, such as through the federal 287(g) program already adopted by several counties, or by having nearby officers accompany raids to keep public order, which would help quickly debunk any imposters.
This type of public partnership would not be a political statement about immigration, rather a commonsense way to put the public at ease and ensure all involved in raids are safe.
The MELT Act is symbolic theater that punishes law enforcement while doing nothing to realistically stop imposters.
New Yorkers would be safer if lawmakers scrapped this bill and instead fostered real cooperation between local police and ICE to deter fraud and protect both the public and the agents doing dangerous work.
Paul Dreyer is a cities policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump doesn't have to quit UNESCO again because we never lawfully rejoined
President Trump recently announced that the United States was quitting the United Nations Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) for the third time. This is good news – UNESCO has championed gender ideology in education, discriminatory DEI policies, and the entire litany of woke doctrines. It has also worked to erase Jewish history in the Holy Land. But the administration did not need to bother with formally withdrawing from the treaty — from a constitutional perspective, the U.S. hasn't been a member at least since Trump first quit it in 2017. When Biden sought to rejoin the Paris-based agency in 2023, he neglected to seek authorization from Congress. No one made a big deal of it then, but it means that, for domestic law purposes, the U.S. never actually rejoined. This is an important point with implications for numerous international organizations, especially as the administration sets out on an agenda of U.N. reform. Membership in international organizations was not supposed to be a political revolving door. Congress authorizes membership at the outset. After the U.S. leaves, a whole new congressional authorization must be obtained by any president wishing to rejoin. Under the Constitution, the president can only bring the country into a treaty with the 'consent' of two-thirds of the Senate. That is a substantial hurdle, and deliberately so: Commitments to foreign countries can be harder to pull out of than domestic ones. They can become a way of imposing obligations on the country that are then out of reach of the democratic process. In the 20th century, presidents have often relied on the approval of a majority of both Houses instead, a dubious practice but now widely followed. When the U.S. first joined UNESCO in 1946 (and the World Health Organization in 1948), President Truman was acting pursuant a law passed by both Houses authorizing him to do so. But Congress did not reauthorize Biden's reentry to UNESCO. Instead, he treated the 1946 authorization as a lifetime membership, when in fact it was only a one-time pass. If the U.S. quit a treaty that the Senate had ratified — say the NATO treaty — then a decision to rejoin would be subject to a new requirement of advice and consent. Congressional authorization is a stand-in for Senate ratification and should be subject to the same rules. Consider a parallel case: If a president fires a senate-confirmed appointee, and he or a subsequent president wishes to return him to the same post, no one would argue that he could do so simply on the grounds that the Senate had previously confirmed him. Indeed, Andrew Jackson's Attorney General resigned from his position, and was then reappointed to it — only to be rejected by the Senate. As a statutory matter, the 1946 agreement on UNESCO allowed the president to 'accept membership' — not accept, and accept, and accept again. If a congressional authorization is good for infinite rounds of quitting and rejoining, it makes getting out of international agreements harder than getting in – exactly the opposite of what the Framers intended. The argument of perpetual authorization was invented by Jimmy Carter, who purported to rejoin the International Labor Organization in 1980 based on a 1934 authorization. President Bush neglected to seek congressional approval when he rejoined UNESCO in 2002, nearly two decades after Reagan quit. Neither instance attracted much attention, and two modern actions do not prove a constitutional rule. There is a good argument for the Trump administration having withdrawn from UNESCO as if it were a member — to avoid any doubt or subsequent quibbling. But the administration should clarify that it is 'quitting' only out of an excess of caution, and does not see the U.S. as properly joined, which is consistent with its nonpayment of any dues. To avoid abuse by future administrations, Congress should repeal the antiquated authorizations for UNESCO and WHO, which Trump also announced withdrawal from. If a subsequent president wants to rejoin, he should have to sell it to Congress on the organization's existing records, not the hopes and dreams of the 1940s.
San Francisco Chronicle
8 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Newsom is the face of California's redistricting push. That could help him — and hurt the plan
SACRAMENTO — By launching a campaign to redraw California's congressional districts, Gov. Gavin Newsom has once again placed himself at the center of the national political conversation. That's helpful to Newsom as he positions himself to run for president in 2028 — something he has not explicitly admitted but has long been evident in his efforts to build a national donor base and boost his visibility in other states, including a recent visit to South Carolina. But it could prove detrimental to the redistricting campaign itself if Republicans can convince voters to view the measure as a power grab by Newsom, rather than the Democrats' framing as a fight against President Donald Trump. For loyal Democratic voters, the key constituency Newsom would need to win in a presidential primary, that framing seems to be working. Newsom has surged in popularity on social media with his persistent attacks on Trump and is earning praise from liberals hungry for their leaders to take on the president more aggressively. 'He's staking out a position as the kind of person who fights,' said Hans Noel, a government professor at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C. 'A lot of Democrats want to see that.' To successfully campaign for president, Newsom needs to shore up support from Democratic leaders and boost his popularity outside of California, Noel said. With the redistricting measure, Newsom risks criticism from people who disagree with his tactics and don't want to see Democrats abandon independent redistricting. But the campaign is undeniably helping him introduce himself to voters outside the Golden State who may not be familiar with him. Being at the forefront of the campaign might help him with a future presidential run, but it could hamper the campaign's chances within California, said Rob Stutzman, a Republican strategist who previously worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger. Democrats describe the measure as a fight against Trump and a direct response to efforts in Texas to redraw maps in favor of Republicans. Newsom has said he'd abandon the effort if Texas dropped its plans. But it's also something that would hand California Democrats more power, as Republican opponents are already pointing out. 'Every issue that matters to Californians has been put to the side so that (Newsom) and other politicians can seize back power,' Assembly Member Carl DeMaio, R-San Diego, said during a news conference opposing the redistricting measure on Monday. 'The reason why we're here today is Gov. Gavin Newsom's failing presidential campaign needs a little boost.' Democratic lawmakers plan to vote on Thursday to place the measure on the ballot in a Nov. 4 special election. They'll have a remarkably short span of time to convince voters to support the proposition, which would redraw California's congressional maps to give an advantage to Democrats. That would temporarily roll back a reform passed by voters in 2010, when they removed power to draw congressional districts from the Legislature and gave it to an independent commission with equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats. That reform was good in theory, Democrats say, but in practice dilutes Californians' power in Congress because other states continue to draw their districts in a partisan way. The proposed redistricting measure would replace the independent commission's maps with maps favoring Democrats for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 elections. After the 2030 census, the independent commission would draw new maps free of partisan interference. It's not clear yet whether Newsom will continue to be the face of the campaign. The fight was his idea, and he has led the charge so far — hosting regular press conferences and doing a blitz of interviews to promote the plan. He narrates the campaign's first ad, which features a speech he gave in Sacramento criticizing Texas Republicans' redistricting moves. Voters tend to be skeptical of efforts by politicians to increase their own power. The more Newsom is seen as the face of the measure, the more likely voters are to see it as a self-serving ploy and reject it, Stutzman said. 'Whether this passes is a more difficult question, but the opportunity it provides for Newsom I think is very valuable,' Stutzman said. 'He certainly seems intent on making the most of it.' Julia Azari, a politics professor at Marquette University in Wisconsin, said Newsom's antagonism of Trump somewhat mirrors what Kamala Harris did in 2017. While serving as California's junior senator, Harris staked out a reputation for taking Trump administration officials to task during oversight hearings, an image that helped propel her candidacy for president in 2020. In the end, Harris wasn't able to out-compete the frontrunners in that race — Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders — who both had many more years in the national spotlight. Getting out in front of voters so early has a potential downside, Azari noted, which is that it will give voters more time to learn unflattering things about Newsom's record as governor of California. But Biden faced the same challenge in 2020, which he overcame to win the presidency. The redistricting fight is particularly well-suited for these purposes. It centers Newsom in a major national political story. And it allows him to position himself at the front of the pack of Democrats vying for a nomination in 2028 while uniting, not attacking them, Noel said. Ludovic Blain, who runs the progressive donor group the California Donor Table, said he's not always aligned politically with the governor, but on this issue, they're on the same page. He said progressives are looking for politicians who will stand up to Trump, and Newsom is rising to the occasion. He said he doesn't necessarily see a major downside for Newsom if the ballot measure fails. 'Voters want to see fighters,' he said. 'The question of whether they're successful — that's secondary because you can't be successful if you don't fight.'
American Press
8 minutes ago
- American Press
Jim Beam column:Texas has awakened Democrats
Texas Republican legislators who are trying to create five more GOP congressional seats in their state may not have realized it at the time, but they have given the Democratic Party that appeared to be lost in the wilderness new life. The Associated Press reported that, thanks to Texas, 'Democrats have shown they are willing to go beyond words of outrage and use whatever power they do have to win.' U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas said, 'For everyone that's been asking, 'Where are the Democrats?' — well, here they are. For everyone who's been asking, 'Where is the fight?' — well, here it is.' Crockett happens to be one of several Democrats who could be ousted if Texas succeeds in creating those five new GOP congressional seats. The AP said progressive and establishment Democrats are working together, 'uniting what has often been a fragmented opposition since Republicans led by President Donald Trump took control of the federal government with their election sweep in November…' Leaders on the left say they can challenge Trump's redistricting plan, Republicans' tax and spending law and press the case that he is shredding democracy. The AP said Democrats who left Texas during a special session surfaced in Illinois, New York, California and elsewhere. They were joined by governors, senators, state party chairs, other states' legislators and activists. All promised action, The AP said, and added, 'The response was Trumpian.' Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York welcomed Texas Democrats who left Texas. They pledged to do retaliatory redistricting. California Democrats released a plan that would give the party an additional five U.S. House seats that will require voter approval in November. Democratic Party leaders and activists say that by arguing that Trump diminishes democracy stirs people who already support Democrats. Despite new Democratic Party enthusiasm, The New York Times reported Monday that Republicans have the advantage in redistricting. States need single-party control and The Times said there are 23 states with Republican control and 15 with Democratic control. Newsom, the California governor, introduced a Louisiana issue in the redistricting fight. He was critical of Trump's police takeover in Washington, D.C., and his activation of the National Guard to quell California protests. When Newsom talked about Shreveport crime in his argument, he got into a personal exchange with Louisiana Republican Gov. Jeff Landry and U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-Benton. A headline in The Shreveport Times said Landry and Johnson told Newsom to mind his own business after insulting Shreveport. Newsom said, 'I think (Trump) should start with Shreveport, La., and Speaker Johnson's district that has six times plus the per capita murder rate of Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco. What about the carnage, Mr. President, in Shreveport? Why aren't you protecting the folks there?' David Jacobs in a State Affairs story on LaPolitics Weekly quoted Landry who said, 'Gov. Newsom may hold his own opinions but he is not entitled to distort the facts; homicides in Shreveport are down 40% this year and we are continuing to see a significant decline in crime.' Johnson said Newsom should spend time dealing with 'the disastrous far-left policies that are destroying his state.' Shreveport Mayor Tom Arceneaux told KPEL, 'Gov. Newsom doesn't know what he's talking about and that we are in better shape in Shreveport than he alleges.' Jacobs wrote, 'But regardless of what state and local officials say, Newsom's claim that Shreveport has a much higher homicide rate than San Francisco is correct. In fact, he actually understated the difference between the two cities. 'Based on population estimates and reported homicide numbers for both cities, Shreveport had 29.4 homicides per 100,000 people in 2024, while San Francisco had 4.2 homicides per 100,000. So for last year at least, the per capita homicide rate was more than seven times higher in Shreveport, not six times higher as Newsom stated.' The Texas Legislature is expected to succeed in creating now GOP congressional districts and other Republican states may follow suit. However, the Texas power play has the Democratic Party back in the mix, and Democrats appear to be ready to increase their numbers wherever they can. Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than six decades. Contact him at
