Individuals, cities cannot pick and choose which laws to follow
Letter date:
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Letter publisher:
Statesman Journal, Salem
Letter link:
Letter body:
I read with interest and dismay the article about Salem becoming an “inclusive city.” I wonder why city leaders would call it “inclusive city” rather than what they mean: “sanctuary city.”
I fully support legal immigration and law and order. Without law and order, we would become an anarchy. Anyone, including cities, could pick and choose to follow any law, or not, as convenient.
The subject of sanctuary cities or organizations is popular right now because of the political environment, but law and order are not, and should not, be based on popularity or expediency. I would not trade our system for any other.
An issue I fear is that if cities such as Salem can pick and choose what federal laws to follow or enforce, what would happen if we get city officials who have issues with federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)?
If not responsible for creating the slippery slope to anarchy, Salem has jumped onto the slope with both feet, only because it is the popular thing to do, not the right thing to do.
Bob Curtis, Salem
