Breaking the law is breaking the law

Much has been written and said of late regarding so-called sanctuary cities, in which some local governments deliberately and intentionally choose not to enforce federal immigration law.  The killing of a young woman in San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal immigrant reportedly deported five times, has fueled the discussion.  From my perspective, most (if not all) of this discussion has been off target.

Simply stated, breaking the law is breaking the law.  By not enforcing the law, the local governments are breaking federal law.  And make no mistake, any level of government that deliberately and intentionally fails to enforce a law is breaking the law.  Regardless of the motivation, local governments failing to enforce federal law is exactly the wrong action.  Wrong in incomprehensible ways, because a major function of government is to provide for equal application of the law.

In the current context, the subject happens to be immigration.  But what about the next time?  Once demonstrating a willingness to break the law, where does it end?  What if a locality decides to break federal voting laws by lack of enforcement?  What if localities decide to break federal tax laws by lack of enforcement?  If a locality can decide which federal laws it will enforce, then what stops that locality from failing to enforce any laws (federal, state, or local)?  Could it be, ridiculous as it may sound, that a locality deliberately decides to cease enforcing laws against sex crimes, or tax evasion, or weapons, or burglary, or speeding in residential neighborhoods, or underage drinking, or embezzlement?  Deliberately and intentionally choosing not to enforce laws makes no sense, in part because we are a nation of laws and expect all entities to respect and obey them, or face the consequences.  

Why can a locality break federal law, apparently without legal or other consequence?  And if a locality can willingly and deliberately break the law, why then can not a private citizen do the same on the same basis of an individual decision?  Again, it makes no sense.

In our three part form of government, the executive branch (at all levels) is chartered with enforcement of the law.  Pure and simple.

If the law is wrong, change the law.  Either challenge it successfully in the courts or work with the appropriate legislative body to change or repeal it.  Any other approach tears at the fabric of our country.

Today it is immigration, tomorrow it could be anything else.