I’m sorry - What was that?! “Defending the city?!?!” From illegal immigrants? This is a deeply curious approach for a city that for years has prided itself on welcoming arrivals before the reality of Texas Governor Greg Abbott sharing some of the immigrant crisis with New York City became a burden. It is leading the once self-sainted members of the city to begin contradicting their aggrandizing positions.

After attempting to block the move of shipping migrants to New York via executive order, Adams then decided a way to stem the tide of new arrivals was to sue the bussing companies chartered by Abbott. The basis of this doomed lawsuit (admitted to by The New Yorker) is a law on the books that says it is a punishable offense to bring needy people to the state.

Any person who knowingly brings, or causes to be brought, a needy person from out of the state into this state for the purpose of making him a public charge, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of one hundred dollars, and shall be obligated to convey such person out of the state or to support him at his own expense.

It may be a bit of a gambit by Adams to dredge up this legislation, but it also manages to fly in direct opposition to the past vaunted claims of his city and state to be open and welcoming to those in need from abroad. How does one reconcile this law that criminalizes importing individuals to become charges of the state when the language of New York’s Sanctuary Status promises that very service to illegals?

Adams has been struggling with the paradox that his town charter states they are bidden to provide help and shelter to anyone who is without on any given night. The State Liberty Act also prevents authorities from making stops or arrests based on a person’s immigration status, yet Adams has been striving to defy this ordinance by segregating illegals from being covered by this law.

It was a year ago when he was on the air trying to stipulate that those people seeking asylum as a means of remaining in this country are not to be covered by the right-to-shelter law. What is playing out here is the high-minded pontification and preaching made by civic leaders running into the harsh reality of the results of their words. You cannot claim to be elevated thinkers and hugely benevolent leaders and not have those claims followed through once you face the “find out” aspect of FAFO reality. 

This is reflected in the anger seen from Errol Louis in his piece lauding Adams as he vies for a resolution to a problem created by his own city policies. Louis hopes the legal expenses these bus companies endure will cause them to suspend providing the services for what he calls “callous political stunts” conducted by a Texas governor he describes as a “malicious” individual.

Just consider for a moment what all of this outrage and posturing means. Adams is essentially saying that it is a moral obligation to service and care for these arrivals - as indicated by the sanctuary laws - but that is an obligation to be conducted by others. You cannot announce you're the better person and claim to offer help but then lash out aggressively when dealing with the very result you invited with your words and actions. 

Texas has not called itself a sanctuary port for illegal arrivals, and it is dealing with a monstrous responsibility. Sharing that burden with leaders from those locales that preen for the cameras how magnificent they are by welcoming these same people is a logical conclusion. To see Adams and his type now braying loudly “Not In My Back Yard!” serves to underscore how vacant their claims are, and how serious this immigration influx is as far as being a problem the Biden administration and the press want to deny.