Values And The Law

There was a time when “values” referred to “family values”: contraception, abortion, sexual practices, and “gender” identification. It was an issue that was of greatest concern to conservatives, who were accused of trying to impose their ideas on the rest of us. Specifically it was considered to be an attempt of “conservative Christians” to impose their religious beliefs on us, (much as it was the goal of other religious groups to force us to abide by their views – atheism and other similar issues) notwithstanding their beliefs and those of others, and the interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. Following Roe v Wade they considered it settled law that abortion was legal and those who argued against it were urging their followers to disregard the law.

The debate has changed. Now the concern over values seems to be that of the supporters of “American values” as they relate to immigration. We were all immigrants and we should welcome all who want to be a part of our great nation. And those who have entered our country with disregard of the legislated procedures should be granted citizenship, or at least allowed to live here without any threat of governmental action. That perspective rests not only with individuals, but with the governments of some cities – “sanctuary cities” – that disregard federal law, but demand that their law enforcement agencies not be penalized by the national government for ignoring its rules. The only people whose voices they hear are the protesters – the squeaky wheels – who consider the law to be wrong and demand that it be ignored.

It's hard to know whether there is support for the concept because it is generally the decision of the city's leaders to adopt the status rather than the choice of voters. But that's not really the point. What is really the question is whether cities have the authority to ignore – violate – our country's laws, with or without the agreement of their citizens. And if they do violate federal mandates, are they entitled to governmental support which, from a practical standpoint, implies agreement with the way they have determined their priorities and with their disagreement with federal law. Do citizens and non-citizens have the right to choose which laws they will follow and which they will ignore? Is that the American way? They may claim “civil disobedience,” but hiding from officials makes that claim absurd.

In 1780, seven years before the writing of our Constitution, and nine years before it was adopted, John Adams included the idea of a “government of laws, not of men” in the Massachusetts Constitution. It was an idea that was held firmly in all of the colonies that formed our country, and it is still approved by most Americans. Is ignoring Federal laws an American value? Or is it an act of men (and women) seeking to gain points from voters?

Yes we were all immigrants – or our predecessors were. Most, however, entered this country according to the rules in place at the time. There was a period when there was no law on the matter and then, like most countries, laws were established regarding who might enter and what procedures had to be followed to do so. A defined process was established. And for citizenship as well. And among the requirements for citizenship was a commitment to follow our laws. Indeed, many of our “entitlements” were limited to citizens or others who were here legally.

There are an estimated eleven million persons in our country who have not followed the rules. There are many others who have been waiting patiently for legal procedures to be followed in regard to their applications for entry. Those who are already here (but not those waiting in line) are often enjoying the benefits of our nation, including jobs and entitlements. Their children go to school here and they use our medical facilities when they need them. It's hard to fault those who come because they are intent on a better life. Our ancestors did the same and there are many who do so now. But it cheapens our traditions to suggest that “American values” require that we grant blanket citizenship to those who have knowingly violated the law. I wonder if those who protest in their support know that they are promoting the selective adherence to our laws and encouraging immigrants to violate the law. They are imposing their values on the rest of us. And it sends the wrong message to others, especially those who have sought legal immigration. However lovingly we may characterize their quest, they have violated the law. However sentimentally and sensitively we may view their plight, it is contrary to Adams's teaching. And it is contrary to our values.

Exiling them all, sending them back to countries that many of them left long ago, isn't the answer, but neither is a blanket amnesty. They should be registered and provided with a path to legitimacy that includes some form of penalty for their disregard of our laws. Many of them are nice people, but they are not above the law. And we must make it clear that those who, in the future, violate our laws will be punished far more severely for their acts.

We are a “government of laws, not of men.” That's an American value.

May 18, 2017