An American flag waves in the wind outside of City Hall in Valencia on Jan. 27. Katharine Lotze/Signal
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+

Earlier last week, our fellow Southern California residents in the luxurious beach community of Malibu declared their town a “Sanctuary City” for illegal immigrants, a move that comes as our own California state assembly seeks to grant that status to the entire state.

This move, perhaps done out of sympathy, perhaps done out of ire for the President, is fundamentally incoherent with the notions of the federally directed Nation-State.

In 1862, President Lincoln signed an executive order which outlawed slavery in the parts of the country which were in rebellion against the Union. Through three more years of bloody combat and nearly 750,000 Americans killed, the final outcome would be what the President had assured the American people.

This country would be a nation of free men, enfranchised to carry out their destinies within the borders of the Union so many had fought so hard to preserve.

Our Civil War set a precedent that we have continued to follow to this day. The federal laws of this country apply to all of its citizens and all of its states, regardless of your differences of opinion. Disagreeing with a law does not give you the permission to break the law.

While this may seem to be basic common sense to the vast majority of readers, an overwhelming number of our elected officials do not seem to comprehend this notion. State Senator Kevin de Leon (D- Los Angeles) has proposed a bill which would turn the entire state of California into a sanctuary state, rebuking longstanding federal laws prohibiting the residence of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Many leaders of metropolitan areas, too, have come out in vocal support of these kinds of sanctuary policies, offering up suggestions to remain a sanctuary city even in the face of federal laws barring such an act.

Clearly, these are individuals who do not understand the intrinsic nature of the Nation-State.

Our government is a representative republic, where we use the democratic method to elect certain individuals we believe will best represent our local wants and needs, and translate that into policy. If we do not like the actions of those representatives, then we vote them out of office.

We do not simply disregard the law.

These first acts of disregard for the law are what makes great nations like ours weak. For a country as large and diverse as ours, we rely on a strong sense of duty to the laws and principles that guide our country in order to make it a better nation for all of our people.

In this instance, the United States laws prohibiting illegal immigration are the ones that these individuals seek to ignore. However the issue here does not lie with illegal immigration, rather it lies with the notions of laws as a whole.

If certain parts of the country are allowed to break some laws and get away with it now, what kind of precedent does this set for the future? Are individuals now allowed to break laws they do not care to follow? Am I allowed to drive 100 miles an hour down the Old Road just because I do not like the speed limit?

Fortunately, I do not believe that sanctuary city status will come to Santa Clarita in the near future, and I believe there are enough Senators and Assemblymen and women to make sure that things like Senator de Leon’s proposed bill get swept into the bucket of bad ideas.

This being said, we are living in California just as much as anyone from Malibu or Los Angeles, and whatever laws they enact will, by proximity, have a spillover effect onto us.

As citizens of this country, we have a duty to uphold the laws of the land, and call for those who do not to change their course or remove themselves from a seat of power.

As citizens, we enter a social contract to maintain this nation for our posterity. That fight starts now.

Erick Werner is a West Ranch alumni, a university student, and a Santa Clarita resident.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+
Comments
By commenting, you agree to our terms and conditions.
  • Ron Bischof

    A cogent summary of the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution and why the rule of law must remain consistent, Mr. Werner.

  • Gil Mertz

    Thank you for your column, Erick. Very well stated.

    Here’s three facts to consider regarding sanctuary cities.

    1. The American people are overwhelmingly against it.

    2. The Democratic Party is overwhelmingly for it. I cannot think of a single Republican mayor who supports sanctuary cities. These cities are 100% run by Democrats.

    3. Despite knowing this is against the law, Democratic leaders have vowed to not only break it, but to openly fight against obeying it. They are prepared to lose millions of federal dollars for the people of their state to benefit a handful of people who are here illegally. In our own state the governor has hired Eric Holder at $25,000 a month of OUR money to help break the law. As Obama’s former Attorney General, wasn’t Eric Holder once the chief law enforcement officer in the United States?

    So then, what is the method behind this madness? Simple. Future voters for their party which they desperately need. The more they can appease illegal immigrants, the more they’re hoping it will replace the millions of working Americans that the party has abandoned. What a truly sick, disgraceful party.

  • Brian Baker

    Good column. Well said.

    Interestingly enough, just a few years ago, when Arizona acted to step up enforcement of immigration laws in order to fill the vacuum left by the inaction of the last administration, many if not all of these same actors where in hair-on-fire mode bleating about how immigration enforcement was the sole purview of the feds due to the supremacy of federal law over any lower-level government entity.

    Hypocrisy much?

    • Ron Bischof

      The ethics demonstrated, if you can call them that, are situational, Brian. It’s posturing rather than principles and it’s based on acquisition and exercise of political power.

      • Brian Baker

        LOL.

        Yeah, I guess!