Our political system is in chaos.
Emotion and zealotry have replaced fact and reason.
What were extremists’ episodic knee-jerk ideological reactions have become constant full-blown spasms of the body politic.
Frightened politicians too often choose political expediency over sound policy.
Take the migrant issue: a political hot button to be sure — the immigration issue on steroids.
Politicians’ response is a fear-driven pass-the-buck mentality.
That’s only made the problem worse.
Let’s be clear on the indisputable facts.
The federal government is by definition responsible for immigration law.
Our federal law allows refugees to enter the country and seek asylum from within the country.
They have a right to a hearing and a judicial determination.
But there’s been an increase in asylum seekers due in part to the Biden administration’s policy changes.
It’s the federal government’s job to manage this increase one way or another.
But it has all but abrogated responsibility and left the burden to state and local governments in what has become a political nightmare.
The mayor and governor have repeatedly requested assistance from the feds, who have turned a deaf ear to New York.
With the situation now critical, two things can be done.
First, inform the federal government that if it does not fulfill its responsibility, the city will sue.
It’s a violation of federal law to transport people here illegally across state lines.
Bus companies have been transporting both legal asylum seekers and illegal undocumented people to New York City.
The federal government has failed to enforce the law and should be held liable for the damages, along with the bus companies.
Second, the state government must prioritize funding New York City.
The state compounds the federal negligence because most migrants are in Gotham and the state resists fairly distributing them to other communities for fear of political backlash.
There is no legal, moral or practical basis for that position.
Yes, New York City is a sanctuary city, but New York state is a sanctuary state, and asylum seekers are here legally.
Like the federal government, the state also refuses to reimburse the city the cost of migrant care.
The state claims only New York City has a “right to shelter” law.
But the city obligation to shelter is based on the state Constitution article 17 mandating the state and its subdivisions must provide care for the needy as determined by the Legislature.
This constitutional provision applies to New York City as a “subdivision” of the state as well as every other local government in the state.
And the provision primarily applies to the state government itself, which is failing to meet its own constitutional responsibility and should be held liable.
The Constitution anticipated changing circumstances and gave the Legislature power to establish policies such as defining who has a right to shelter, what that entails and who’s responsible for the cost.
The Legislature could end the current confusion and court cases by establishing a uniform migrant policy (and homeless policy) for the state.
Ironically the majority of state legislators are from New York City, so they’re unfairly burdening their own constituents by imposing the cost on city taxpayers alone.
The old Albany adage comes to mind: “A politician who does nothing does nothing wrong.”
That’s why meaningful change is so rare in state government.
The state politicians think they’re playing it politically safe by avoiding the migrant issue.
They are wrong.
New York City is already in crisis dealing with a post-COVID economy, high vacancies, crime, homelessness, out-migration and budget deficits.
It cannot afford to pay the estimated $12 billion (by fiscal year 2025’s end) in migrant care.
Nor can it afford to cut essential services when quality of life is already suffering.
That would only add to the 630,000 people who have left the city since COVID.
The city is the economic engine for the state and the region.
If the Big Apple falters, the consequences will be devastating.
The feds and the state also mistreat migrants, who are over-concentrated in one very dense city, packed in modern-day “welfare hotels” and tent cities.
Is that considered “progressive” policy?
No, it is a damning regressive policy from a state that historically set the progressive standard.
An intelligent approach for the federal and state governments would match migrants with locations that could provide employment opportunities and housing.
Many migrants are agricultural workers, and many cities have seen loss of population.
Businesses need low-wage workers. Intelligently managed, the migrant population could be an asset rather than the liability that’s been created.
New York City needs and deserves help.
President Gerald Ford adopted a “Drop dead” policy to New York.
It was reckless and counterproductive then, and it is reckless and counterproductive now.
Andrew Cuomo was governor of New York.
This story originally appeared on NYPost
