Law makers must not be law breakers

It really troubles me to be living in a nation with leaders who demonstrate an open contempt for the law and for centuries-old societal norms.

No, I’m not thinking about President Donald J. Trump, who surely fits the bill.

In this case I am thinking a Democratic Socialist, plus other Democrats of a less extreme stripe.

Zohran Mamdani,, the mayor of America’s largest city, New York, said he rejects a U.S. Supreme Court decision that permits a President  to decide when to end Temporary Protective Status. TPS allows foreigners to shelter in the U.S. temporarily because of serious problems in their homeland. 

In a statement directed to the affected, Mamdani said, “New York City is your home. You belong here,” adding the city would provide them with counseling and legal assistance.

Currently, TPS shields about 1.3 million people from 17 countries, the greatest numbers from Venezuela (605,015), Haiti (330,735),  El Salvador (170,125), and Ukraine (101,125). 

There are two issues here: Law, and Policy.

The Supreme Court has decided the law, that the President can set policy. And that temporary means temporary. Which means TPS people don’t “belong” here; they have been given temporary shelter.

The second issue is Policy, which asks if the President should end TPS.

Until last week’s earthquake, with the removal of Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro,  one could argue Venezuela was safe for dissidents to return. It is not safe today.

No sane person could make that claim about Haiti, or Ukraine, which are battle zones.

Mamdani was given a quick shove by Democratic U.S. Sen. John Fetterman, saying the New York mayor could provoke a Constitutional crisis, and called on fellow Democrats to condemn Mamdani’s stance.

There was no rush to do so.

In his oath of office, Mamdani swore to support and uphold the Constitution of the U.S., the Constitution of New York, and the Charter of the City of New York. The Supreme Court’s decision interpreted the Constitution, which Mamdani swore to support and uphold.

Mamdani is saying, in effect, he will break his vow and ignore laws he doesn’t like.

This is an undisguised attack on our American system which operates on the rule of law, and faith that citizens will abide by it. 

This defiance is pretty gobsmacking coming from a party that yells “fascist!” at anyone 15 degrees right of center.

And this brings me to

Sanctuary Cities

These are cities, counties, even states — almost every one under Democratic control — that refuse to cooperate with enforcement of immigration law.

To be clear, they are not required to enforce immigration law. That is a federal responsibility, but they can cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They refuse to do so, even though presence in the United States without proper documentation is a violation of federal law — 8 U.S. Code § 1325. 

This is the legal answer to people like U.S. Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who once told Homeland Czar Tom Homan that illegal entry is not a crime, only to have him recite the statute to her.

It’s one thing to disagree with the law, that’s freedom of speech. But to pretend it does not exist, that’s immoral.

The vast majority of Democrats just do not care about this law. 

I’ve known that for the two decades I have been opposing illegal immigration, so it was no surprise to read that a recent Suffolk University/Philadelphia Inquirer poll revealed 59% of Philadelphia residents want to remain a sanctuary city “even if it means losing federal funding.” Only 28% said no, with the rest undecided or unwilling to say.

This is a mind-blowing example of misplaced empathy. We are not talking about the Underground Railroad here. 

I wonder if that 59% would stand firm if the government actually cut hundreds of millions in aid to health, housing, education, and transportation.

Would they stand tall if it resulted in higher taxes  to them? Would they still feel good about thumbing their nose at the law?

Illegal entry is law-breaking and I am not honoring the usual hair-splitting argument that it is not a “crime” because (on the first offense) it is “only” a misdemeanor.

A common argument, heard from both sides of the political divide, is that no person is above the law.

Unless you are an illegal immigrant, Democrats say.

Sanctuary Cities operate on the premise that once you get here, you should be allowed to stay here, regardless of the law that says anyone here illegally is subject to removal. Preventing the removal of people here illegally is tantamount to Open Borders, as I pointed out in an August 2025 column. 

Open Borders is suicide, because we would be swamped by the 158-million who would come here today if they could.

Cities such as Philadelphia have prohibited schools, police, hospitals — any governmental authority — from even inquiring about legal status. Why? To shield them from law enforcement.

Philadelphia protects even convicted foreign felons.

Such as this repeat foreign offender who was protected from ICE by Mayor Jim Kenney’s executive order, which enabled the creep to be released so he could rape a child. 

Her lost innocence should be on Kenney’s conscience. Does he care, or does he mark up her suffering as a price she must pay for his progressive virtue signaling?

I’ve heard all the arguments in support of the illegals:

• They don’t mean any harm. 
• They are just poor people trying to get by. 
• They help the economy. 
• The U.S. immigration policy is racist. 
• It is broken. 

Here are my answers:

They might not  mean any harm, but they do harm the rule of law. And it is not just immigration laws they break. If they get a job, that breaks another law. If they use a fake Social Security number, that breaks another law. So how many laws will you accept shattered on the floor?

Most are poor and want to work. All they have to do — like millions did for a century — is take a number and wait their turn. Don’t jump the line. Why should your first action in America be as a law breaker?

They help the economy, and hurt it, too. By creating a labor surplus, they drive wages down. That’s Econ 101. They are found filling jobs mostly at the bottom of the wage ladder, jobs filled by American Black and brown people.

The immigration system is racist, but not the way you think. It discriminates against white people. Not one of the Top Ten nations sending their people to us is a “white” nation. The first “white” nation on the list is Canada, at No. 17.  

If it is broken, it is largely because of the stress it is under because of the flood of illegals.

The system is not that hard to fix. It starts with solving the problem of mass illegal immigration, mainly a product of President Joe Biden’s soft-hearted and soft-headed approach.

His empathy led to disaster — and helped elect Trump.

The solution starts with sealing the border (done), then jailing employers who hire illegals, a statute of limitations, allowing illegals to come forward, make apologies, pay fines or fees, and become eligible for legal status — but not citizenship. 

Why not citizenship? Two reasons: 1- Punishment for breaking the law. 2- To prevent them from being used as a political football — Republicans insist immigrants are all future Democratic voters. And they may be. The issue of how they may vote disappears if they aren’t permitted to vote.

Details of my 5-point plan to clean up the mess can be found here. 

In the meanwhile, I suggest to my political friends — left and right — if you want them to obey the law, start obeying the law yourself.