Here's a question my friend Barbara Jolley Mumm asked me recently:
"If the law clerk in Kentucky is sitting in jail for not abiding by the law, why aren't those in sanctuary cities doing the same? Are they both in violation of the federal law? If not, why? Just curious as to why one is more important than the other.
Here's my answer:
All governments- local, state, and federal have many laws they do not enforce due to economics, politics and other concerns. In this case, instead of a government using tax dollars and political capital to pursue prosecution, a private citizen is using private money--capitalism at its finest--to advance the cause of civil rights.
Granted, tax money is later used, but locking up one recalcitrant government employee which resolves the problem pretty quickly (as today it has) whereas deporting--what is it?--12 to 30 million people who are undocumented would bankrupt ICE and the entire federal court system. To understand this times 30 million by $20,000 to get a good guess on the expense of locating, incarcerating, processing and then deporting them.
I think I know your views on both these issues but one thing you may not appreciate is that millions of dollars are saved by many US businesses that get cheap labor due to illegal immigration and they keep mum about it for political reasons because they want on the one hand to support conservative causes but on the other hand they want cheap labor and cheap foreign goods which in the long run hurts us as a country.
As to the clerk, you have to keep in mind that the consequences are more politically visible. The executive branch of local and federal governments decide what to prosecute. As you know and disagree with, although by the numbers, President Obama's administration has deported more people than the prior administration, he along with his law enforcement agencies still decides what to prosecute and congress decides how much money there is to do it.
© Loren M. Lambert, September 8, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment