Sanctuary Cities

This will probably be short, but I have to comment on the news of the day (and of those preceding and those likely to follow). There has been a lot of talk about sanctuary cities. The mayors of such cities proclaim loudly that they will continue to care for the illegal immigrants they serve, and defy the Federal Government when it comes to dealing with them.

It's very noble. We are, after all, a country of immigrants. And those concerned with the needs of others should be praised and honored. A liberal philosophy is what made America great. Our principles are paramount.

But we're also a country of laws. So when a city's mayor refuses to cooperate with the American government, which has the responsibility for control of immigration, (s)he is violating the law. Right, wrong, and virtue are not the issues – the law is. A public official who says that it is justified to defy this statute is telling criminals that they are justified in violating others. Complaining about crime rates and demanding help in controlling law-breaking is hypocritical for someone who has already done the same thing.

A willingness to take the consequences for breaking a law one believes unjust is admirable. Civil disobedience is principled, but until the law is changed the perpetrator must be willing to accept the penalty for violation. The loud protests concerning the repercussions of not following the law (decreased aid to those cities), and other defiant protests make the political nature of the act clear. Selective obedience of our laws is anarchy.