A Tragedy That Demands Hard Questions

We must have a debate over government’s first duty

The first responsibility of government is simple: to protect its citizens by upholding the rule of law.

Laws exist to create order, protect innocent people, provide justice for victims, and ensure that everyone is treated equally under a common set of rules. When government deliberately chooses not to enforce certain laws — or actively restricts cooperation between agencies responsible for enforcing them — it is fair to ask whether government is still fulfilling that fundamental responsibility.

These concerns are not new for me.

In 2018, when Westchester County was considering its Immigrant Protection Act, my friend and fellow Councilman, Tom Diana, and I introduced a resolution asking the county to reconsider the legislation before it was adopted. Our concern was straightforward: limiting cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities could have unintended consequences for public safety. We believed then, as we did throughout our years of public service together, that government agencies charged with protecting the public should work together — not be prevented from doing so by policy.

Our resolution was defeated by a 3-2 vote.

Tom Diana devoted his life to public service. Whether as a police officer, town councilman, or later as Yorktown Supervisor, he understood that government has no higher calling than protecting the people it serves. It was a principle we stood for together then, and one that continues to guide me today.

Our position was never rooted in opposition to immigration or a lack of compassion for those seeking a better life. America has always been a nation strengthened by legal immigration and by those who come here seeking freedom and opportunity. Our concern was, and remains, much simpler: laws should be enforced consistently, and every level of government should work together when public safety is at stake. We believed then — as I still believe today — that reducing cooperation between law enforcement agencies creates unnecessary risks and makes it more difficult to protect innocent people.

Sadly, the concerns Tom and I raised eight years ago are no longer just theoretical. They have become part of a painful conversation our community has been forced to confront. That reality is why I believe it is time to honestly reexamine whether these policies are fulfilling government's first responsibility: protecting innocent people.

This question is at the heart of the debate over sanctuary policies.

Reasonable people can disagree about immigration policy. Congress can change immigration laws if it believes they should be different. That is how our constitutional system is designed to work.

But there is an important distinction between changing a law and refusing to enforce one that already exists.

The rule of law depends on consistency. If governments can selectively decide which laws deserve enforcement based on political preference, the public begins to lose confidence that justice is being applied equally. Once that principle is weakened, it becomes increasingly difficult to argue that any law should be respected simply because it is the law.

Supporters of sanctuary policies often argue that limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities encourages trust between immigrant communities and local police. That concern deserves consideration, particularly when victims or witnesses may fear reporting crimes. Public safety depends on cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they serve.

At the same time, critics argue that when individuals who have been arrested for serious crimes are released instead of being transferred to federal immigration authorities, unnecessary risks can be created. If federal officers must locate those individuals later in neighborhoods rather than in secure jail facilities, the situation can become more dangerous for law enforcement officers, the public, and even the individual being sought.

These are legitimate public policy questions. They deserve thoughtful discussion rather than slogans.

For me, however, this discussion is not theoretical or political — it is deeply personal.

Tom and Jess Gorman are my friends. I have watched them endure every parent's worst nightmare: the loss of their beautiful daughter, Sheridan. No words can adequately describe the grief they carry each day or the unimaginable void left by a young life taken far too soon.

As their friend, I have seen the pain behind closed doors. I have witnessed birthdays, holidays, and family milestones forever changed because Sheridan is no longer there to celebrate them. I have listened as they struggle with the knowledge that their daughter was denied the opportunity to live the full life she deserved — to build a career, raise a family, contribute to her community, and make the difference in this world that every young person should have had the chance to make.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with sanctuary policies, no one can tell Tom and Jess that the system worked for them. From their perspective, the laws and policies that were intended to protect the public failed to protect their daughter. While no policy can guarantee that every crime will prevent every tragedy, government has an obligation to examine whether its policies unnecessarily increase the risk to innocent people. That is not a partisan question. It is a moral one.

Closer to home, these issues take on an even deeper meaning because of Sheridan's story. Her death forced our community to confront difficult questions about whether existing policies are serving the people they were intended to protect. Every tragedy should prompt an honest evaluation of whether our laws are accomplishing their most fundamental purpose: protecting innocent lives.

The debate should not be about politics. It should be about purpose.

Why do we have laws?

If the answer is to protect the innocent, hold offenders accountable, and preserve an orderly society, then every public policy should be measured against those objectives. Laws can be changed through the democratic process. But until they are changed, governments at every level have an obligation to respect them and enforce them faithfully.

The rule of law is not merely a legal principle. It is the foundation of public trust. Citizens deserve to know that laws will be applied consistently, that public officials will carry out the duties entrusted to them, and that protecting the safety of the community will remain the highest priority.

Compassion and the rule of law are not opposing values. America has always been a nation of immigrants, and we should continue to welcome those who come here legally, seeking freedom and opportunity while respecting the laws that bind us together as one nation. We should treat every person with dignity and humanity.

But compassion cannot come at the expense of public safety. A government that chooses not to enforce its laws, or that adopts policies which intentionally frustrate their enforcement, risks failing in its first obligation to the people it serves.

Sheridan Gorman should still be here. Her parents should be watching her build a future instead of mourning a daughter whose life ended before she had the opportunity to fulfill her dreams. While we cannot change what happened, we can honor her memory by asking difficult questions, learning from tragedy, and ensuring that our laws — and the policies surrounding them — never lose sight of their most fundamental purpose: protecting innocent lives.

This isn't about politics. It isn't about Republicans or Democrats. It isn't even about immigration. It is about whether we, as a society, still believe that the first duty of government is to protect innocent people.

If the answer is yes, then every law and every public policy should be judged by that simple standard.

Because when government loses sight of that purpose, it isn't just the law that fails — it is families like Tom and Jess Gorman who are left to bear the consequences for the rest of their lives.