Opinion - Whatcom View

POSTED: Saturday, Jun. 13, 2009

Sanctuary city Con: Sanctuary idea would do more harm than good

The Sanctuary City supporters are seeking a decree from the Bellingham City Council which would require that the police and other authorities disregard knowledge of a person who has removed him or herself from military duty by deserting.

Those opposed to the Sanctuary City proposal have two concerns: the basic concept of granting asylum to members of the armed forces who choose to evade their duty, and the process by which the subject of asylum was brought before the public.

Those who support asylum for deserters cite a number of arguments to rationalize their position. The point of view of those opposed is that those arguments are emotional rather than rational; rely on unsubstantiated statistics, or attempt to reach a logical conclusion built upon an inherently false premise.

Opponents believe there is no conscionable excuse for evading duty. To prove this point, disregard the military defaulter's breach of contract, violation of oath, and voluntary enlistment. Now assume that a mental health condition arises, or there is a conscientious belief that a crisis of conscience has occurred. Can it honestly be argued that going into hiding is a better solution than to confront the situation in a mature, responsible manner? How does a person in this situation face his or her future?

Those who propose the Sanctuary City concept must ponder whether their efforts actually enhance or harm the welfare of the intended recipients of their beneficence.

On some level, is this proposal meant to advance a political agenda? Appropriate advocacy, consistent with one's philosophical, moral or political views, can lead to change. This proposal creates a schism in our community, and is seen as disrespectful, particularly to our veterans.

The minutes of the council reflect that the vote to hold the public meeting on June 8 was unanimous. Why is this city council business? Does this proposal reflect the community's values?

Federal law provides, under the category of Treason, Sedition and Subversive Activities, that it is a crime for any person to advise, counsel or urge insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of service; to conspire to commit those acts; or to harbor any person who commits such an act. Does the city council's involvement facilitate and abet treason?

This is not a "free speech" issue. The right of free speech is not absolute. Speech that advocates the commission of a crime is not protected. Nor is it essential to free speech that any group with an agenda should be allowed the use of city facilities with city council sanction, at the expense of taxpayers. Got an issue that does not tend to cast our nation in a negative light? See if the city council will hold an official public meeting to air your issue.

The Bellingham City Charter provides that the council shall have all authority granted by state law. State law gives the council authority in matters such as establishing a police and fire department, providing for sewage disposal, maintaining roads, and other responsibilities of that sort. City council members should confine themselves to matters essential to the functioning of the city, rather that using the position as a platform to advance a political philosophy.

The majority of citizens who wanted to make public comment in opposition to the proposal were not given the opportunity to do so. The proponents were overwhelmingly outnumbered by those opposed. Those who did not have the opportunity to speak should attend the next council meeting and say their piece during the open comment period.

The seven members of City council made a horrendous political decision by approving this hearing, and mandating the way it was conducted. They badly angered the people who are the essence of this community; those that have more important obligations than bothering with petty partisanship. Congratulations, Bellingham City Council, you may have finally stepped over the abyss into oblivion.

Tim Carpenter is a Whatcom County resident and a Vietnam veteran. He helped organize opposition to the sanctuary city proposal.