If Fox News produced a drama, they couldn’t come up a more fitting story line than this actual news story.
They’d title the episode: “A Tale of Two Immigrants.”
A brown man from a tropical country emigrates to the U.S. with the dream of a career in law enforcement. He learns English, drives two hours each way to the academy, and becomes a police officer of a small community in California.
Then one day this man, a new father, pulls over another man who happens to have a history of multiple felonies and gang affiliation, resides in the country illegally, and is protected from deportation by sanctuary laws.
During this traffic stop, the second man shoots and kills the first.
The police chief of the small community weeps at the death of their first officer ever killed on duty. He lauds the lost officer’s backstory as a role model and hero for the community.
The chief blames sanctuary laws and those who wrote and passed California’s. Those who wrote and upheld the law deflect the blame as irresponsible.
The revelations of this story include the lack of humility of those fighting America’s ideological battles. How refreshing it would be to hear policymakers admit the truth. From liberals: that sanctuary laws will have the collateral damage of protecting some dangerous people who will harm innocents. From conservatives: that military action will have the collateral damage of killing civilians.
The problem is, either side is radicalized; so neither wants to give an inch.
So, they ignore the harm of their policies.
The question I have for those who lean liberal, regarding this specific story, is: If you accept that immigration is a right, that all should be granted permission and protection to live in the U.S., then are you suggesting the end of the nation as an institution? Because without borders and distinguishment between citizen and non-citizen, we effectively have no country.
To be honest, I actually do see the end of the nation-state as an inevitability of continued technological development. But do you? And is this the point where you argue for it?
Stories like this one are pivot points for the public. Individuals hear such a terrible story and decide to either further ignore such tragedies as noise on the way to a more inclusive society. Or the individual decides there are clear wrongs committed in the name of sanctuary policy and that such policy needs to stop. Perhaps there is a third type of individual, one who sees the reality on the ground–the reality that caused this murder–and so sees the need to improve the situation. These are supposed to be the type of people who become politicians.
Whatever the agreement come to, it’s best approached with humility and honesty. Not pride and radicalization. That’s the reason this man is dead.