Modern Slavery? Wealthy New Yorkers Beg Police Not to Turn in Their Cheap Illegal Servants

Affluent liberals’ purported compassion bears a striking resemblance to self-interest.

In fact, like their 19th-century forebears, modern Democrats seem to fancy themselves benefactors to those whom they exploit.

According to the New York Post, police officials in the upscale village of East Hampton on New York’s Long Island have assured wealthy residents that local police cannot cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in detaining and deporting the illegal immigrants upon whom those residents rely for domestic service.

“If it is an ICE detainer or an administrative warrant, we do not have the authority. We will not hold them,” East Hampton Village Police Chief Jeffrey Erickson said at a community meeting on Tuesday.

East Hampton Town Police Chief Michael Sarlo said effectively the same thing at a different meeting.

“Our level of participation and cooperation with ICE lies in criminal matters,” Sarlo said. “I haven’t seen an ICE agent in this town in I can’t tell you how long.”

Sarlo did add, however, that local police do not make a habit of violently confronting armed federal agents.

In other words, police in sanctuary cities cannot assist ICE, but neither do they actively resist ICE’s efforts. Thus, sanctuary cities themselves constitute the real problem here.

Tom Homan, President Donald Trump’s border czar, made that clear last month when he complained that sanctuary cities’ policies make ICE agents’ jobs exponentially more dangerous.

East Hampton’s affluent liberals, however, could not care less about ICE agents’ safety or about federal immigration laws. After all, those liberals need cheap maids and landscapers.

“I think it’s a very good idea and very helpful considering we have a very large community here, and people rely on them,” East Hampton resident Alex Lovett said.

According to Zillow, the average home price in East Hampton is $1.92 million.

Meanwhile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, that wealthy enclave nonetheless maintains a poverty rate of 11.5 percent. How many of those impoverished people work as maids and landscapers?

Of course, Democrats have given no indication that they feel any shame about the slave-like wages they pay their domestic servants.

In fact, they talk openly about how much they need illegal immigrants to pick berries for their fruity drinks.

Do you think this an exaggeration? If so, watch what Democrat strategist Jenna Arnold had to say on CNN last month.

“I can’t wait until American women can’t get blueberries for their smoothies,” Arnold said in a clip posted to the social media platform X.

Democrats say the quiet part out loud: Democrats believe we need to pay illegal immigrants illegal wages because illegal aliens only pick fruits and vegetables.

Democrats wanted slaves to work the fields in 1860. Democrats want illegal aliens 2025.

pic.twitter.com/K80AsX950Z

— IX (@IX_Amendment) January 29, 2025

RNC committeeman AK Kamara of Minnesota drew a clear connection between the modern Democratic Party and its antebellum ancestors.

“The Democrats are going back to their roots! They’ve elected two white men who ardently defend the use of slave-like labor. Both argue that our economy will suffer irreparable harm if we deport criminal aliens Democrats Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest would be proud!” Kamara wrote.

The Democrats are going back to their roots!

They’ve elected two white men who ardently defend the use of slave-like labor. Both argue that our economy will suffer irreparable harm if we deport criminal aliens

Democrats Jefferson Davis and Nathan Bedford Forrest would be proud! pic.twitter.com/lPWxCLDviF

— AK Kamara (@realakkamara) February 2, 2025

Indeed, the similarities between affluent modern liberals and their slave-owning forebears run deep.

For one thing, they have no qualms about using economic blackmail.

The most famous example occurred in 1858, when Democratic Sen. James Hammond of South Carolina, in an address known to history as the “King Cotton” speech, effectively dared his Northern colleagues to make war on slavery, for the South, he said, would then deprive them of that valuable commodity, without which much of Northern industry would grind to a halt.

In other words, without slaves, who would pick the cotton?

Three years later, of course, President Abraham Lincoln called King Cotton’s bluff. And the Civil War settled the argument for good.

Secondly, affluent liberals who tout slave-like labor almost certainly will never repent.

Unless you spend many years researching and teaching Early American History, you probably cannot appreciate the sheer volume of memoirs published by affluent (or once-affluent) former Confederates in the postwar years.

Women — former plantation mistresses — wrote a significant number of those tracts. Almost without exception, they bemoaned the loss of their slaves, whom they called “family.” They insisted that their slaves had good lives and felt happy until Northern agitators ruined everything.

In short, they never abandoned that fanciful idea of themselves as benefactresses to the people whose labor they exploited.

Thus, if history guides us, then we should not expect modern Democrats to behave any differently regarding “their” illegal immigrants.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.