Jealous of the unrest in Minneapolis, Governor Kathy Hochul is looking to foment similar uprisings in New York against the federal government during an election year. Hochul’s recent proposal, dubbed the “Local Cops, Local Crimes Act,” aims to ban New York local police departments from participating in the federal 287(g) program, which allows cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce immigration laws. This proposal isn’t about protecting New Yorkers—it’s a cynical ploy to manufacture unrest and position Hochul as a “resistance” leader.
In a dramatic press conference surrounded by officials like NYPD Commissioner Jessica Tisch and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Hochul decried federal immigration enforcement as a “moment of tyranny,” accusing ICE of “unspeakable acts of violence” and weaponizing local police against communities. She referenced recent events in Minneapolis, where federal agents shot anti-ICE demonstrators Alex Pretti and Renee Good, as a call to action. If passed, New York would join states like California and Illinois in severing these ties, effectively limiting local law enforcement’s ability to assist in deporting criminal aliens.
With her approval ratings hovering in the low 40s, Hochul is desperate to distract from her own governance failures, much like Minnesota Governor Tim Walz did during the 2020 Minneapolis riots. By undermining ICE cooperation, she’s inviting the kind of violence and hatred that plagued Minneapolis, all to boost her political profile. Before ICE, the INS was deporting illegal aliens for decades. There has never been a call to sever connections between federal and local law enforcement on any other issue until this point, nor was this an issue when Barack “Deporter in Chief” Obama was in office. Only now does Hochul try to create this chaos.
Hochul’s motives are transparently political. A recent Marist poll shows her favorability at a tepid 43% favorable to 45% unfavorable. This comes after earlier surveys pegged her unfavorable rating at 45%, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction. Hochul needs a rallying cry. Her administration has been plagued by scandals and policy missteps, earning her the moniker of “the worst governor in America” from critics who point to skyrocketing unaffordability. New York now ranks as the most unaffordable state, with families and small businesses crushed by high taxes, energy costs, and regulations. Her $252 billion state budget, laden with wasteful “green” investments and unchecked spending, exemplifies this fiscal recklessness.
Critics have lambasted her for a flawed vetting process that led to the appointment of Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin, who resigned amid corruption charges, revealing a pattern of poor judgment. She’s too radical for the moderates and too moderate for the radicals. She flip-flops on every issue, trying to appease the Mamdani base while not alienating upstate voters. Like Eric Adams wearing a hat with both a Yankees and Mets logos on it, she tries to please everyone and instead pleases no one.
By stoking anti-ICE rhetoric, Hochul aims to pivot attention from these domestic failures to a federal bogeyman, framing herself as a defender against “tyranny” under President Trump. This isn’t leadership—it’s opportunism that risks public safety for personal gain. Hochul’s strategy mirrors the disastrous approach of Tim Walz in Minnesota, where deliberate inaction combined with inflammatory rhetoric has led to at least two deaths at the hands of federal agents.
Hochul invokes Minneapolis’s recent ICE-related shootings as justification, but her bill would replicate Walz’s error by stripping local police of tools to prevent or contain immigration-fueled tensions. By banning 287(g) agreements, she’s signaling to agitators that New York won’t fully enforce laws, potentially inviting the same hatred and violence Walz enabled. This isn’t protection—it’s provocation, designed to create a “resistance” narrative amid her sagging popularity.
At its core, Hochul’s proposal undermines the vital role of ICE in maintaining public safety. ICE enforces federal immigration laws, focusing on removing criminal aliens who pose threats to communities. The 287(g) program, named after a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, deputizes local officers to identify and detain such individuals, acting as a “force multiplier” for federal efforts. It targets the “worst of the worst”—murderers, gang members, rapists, pedophiles, and terrorists—enhancing security by allowing seamless cooperation. DHS reports over 1,000 such partnerships nationwide, reimbursing local agencies for salaries and benefits, making it a cost-effective way to deport threats.
Contrary to Hochul’s fearmongering, states cooperating with ICE experience no widespread unrest—quite the opposite. Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Virginia lead in 287(g) expansions, with sheriffs praising the program for removing violent criminals without inciting chaos (although the recent election of Abigail Spanberger in Virginia shows a reversal in that policy). In these areas, crime rates haven’t spiked due to enforcement; instead, communities report feeling safer as gangs and smugglers are dismantled. Data indicates lower crime in places prioritizing immigration enforcement over “sanctuary” policies.
The ultimate hypocrisy lies in Democrats’ selective outrage. Under President Obama, deportations hit record highs—over 3 million removals, peaking at 438,421 in FY 2013, earning him the “deporter in chief” label from advocates. His administration expanded programs like Secure Communities, deporting more than Trump ever did, yet there was no widespread Democratic condemnation or calls to ban local cooperation. Obama focused on criminal aliens and border security, with 85% of 2016 removals targeting threats—policies Hochul now vilifies under Trump. No one decried “tyranny” then because it aligned with their politics.
Hochul has been a failure as a governor, and she is using potential violence to mask her failures. Walz’s Minneapolis debacle will be nothing compared to what can happen in New York City. New York being a one-party state means that this proposal will likely pass, and the damage it will wreak will be front and center of the gubernatorial election this coming November.
Moshe Hill is a political analyst and columnist. His work can be found at www.aHillwithaView.com and on X at @HillWithView.