Is ‘law enforcement’ actually what we want?

There has been some debate about the ethics of so-called sanctuary cities. Let’s look at one argument against non-compliance with federal law enforcement and whether it holds up.

First, definitions: A sanctuary city is one that has policies of noncooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE frequently issues requests to local law enforcement for the use of jails and prisons or the holding of arrested individuals without bail on the basis of their immigration status. The exact policies of sanctuary cities vary, but the most common are refusal of these requests and law enforcement that does not take immigration status into account.

Sanctuary cities have seen a great deal of backlash from the Trump administration and the conservative community. In January, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to withdraw federal grant money from sanctuary cities. It’s worth noting that the executive branch cannot cut all federal funding, as most is distributed through Congress, and courts in the past (South Dakota v. Dole) have held that the withdrawal of funds as punishment must be related to the crime, meaning Trump could not pull funding for highways, for example.

While the Trump administration’s threats amount to so much shouting and flailing, there is an ideological stance buried under these actions, and it bears examination. In discussions, I hear one argument raised again and again: The president is only demanding the enforcement of existing laws. Police and local governments are in the wrong because they are refusing to enforce the law.

The question I rarely see considered is this: Is strict enforcement of the law really what we want? As children in school, we were taught that the civil rights movement and the American Revolution, moments of defiance in the face of unjust laws, were some of the most righteous in our shared history. To condemn acts of nonviolent civil disobedience now seems beyond hypocritical.

But perhaps you think cases of justified disobedience are few and far between. You may claim that sanctuary cities have nothing in common with these noble movements. I think you need to look again, but let’s consider your point.

Is it best that the vast majority of laws are enforced? Would we be better off if police kicked down your door to arrest your father for giving you a sip of his beer when you were 10? Is Gainesville Police’s time best spent pulling sedentary stoners off the couch, rounding up bags of chips like so many bullet casings? Should we post officers with stopwatches in Publix to kick you out when comparing avocados has become loitering?

Of course not, you say. This is ridiculous and a waste of police time. These laws are not meant to be enforced exactly, they are laws that police enforce at their discretion to prevent trouble.

The problem comes when we consider just how many discretionary laws we have in America. Cruising laws allow police to arrest you for driving through the same neighborhood or intersection more than once in a set span of time, thereby making lunch breaks, quick trips to the store and borrowing sugar from your neighbor down the road illegal. Laws against joyriding make it illegal to drive for fun without an express reason. These laws are not designed to be enforced. They are designed to allow police to arrest anyone with a car. Search, and you will find these laws exist for any situation. Noise ordinances without set decibel levels allow police to arrest you for playing music. Loitering restrictions allow you to be arrested for standing around.

Many segments of our population are painfully aware that they don’t have to have done anything wrong to be arrested. If we enforced every law, no American would be left outside a cell. Law has nothing to do with right and wrong, and anyone who claims it does simply hasn’t been targeted yet.

David Billig is a UF linguistics masters student. His column appears on Wednesdays.