We should respect the law even when we disagree with it; that does not mean blind obedience
By Nick David
ICE is out of control.
The vigilante left is out of control.
Both statements can be true at the same time, and our collective refusal to hold them together is accelerating the breakdown we claim to oppose.
All people should abide by the law for their own health and prosperity, and for the health and prosperity of the communities they live in — law enforcement included. That principle immediately raises a moral dilemma: Are we each our own highest authority, or are we subject to a greater one? A society that answers that question selectively eventually loses the rule of law altogether.
I am about as American as it gets. On my mother’s side, my family traces its roots back to the Mayflower. On my father’s side, I am a third-generation Lebanese American. I take citizenship seriously — not as an identity badge, but as a responsibility to help preserve what has been built.
It should be uncontroversial to say that the United States cannot absorb unlimited numbers of undocumented immigrants. No country can. A nation that does not know who is within its borders cannot reliably secure them, nor can it fairly administer rights, benefits or protections.
At the same time, legal immigration remains one of America’s greatest strengths. We rely on diversity of thought and background to fuel innovation, economic growth and cultural vitality. Both truths matter. Ignoring either one leads to failure.
Which is why we need to rebuild a shared understanding of who is here, who should be here and who should not be. Up to this point, this should not be a radical position.
Where the system collapses is not in acknowledging these realities, but in how both sides are responding to them.
I have watched many videos of ICE agents at work. Some show professionalism and restraint. Some show hateful and opprobrious interference by civilians. Others document excessive haste, intensity and disregard by ICE agents themselves. Pretending only one of these realities exists is dishonest and dangerous.
None of us are above the law. That includes protesters and it includes law enforcement. Lawful processes should not be obstructed, and law enforcement should not operate in ways that unnecessarily endanger people’s health, dignity or lives.
Enforcement strategies should use more carrot than stick wherever possible. But there is also a hard reality: Undocumented immigrants are, by definition, difficult to apprehend. If ICE makes contact without acting, individuals are likely to disappear. Introducing resistance into already volatile enforcement situations increases the risk of harm for everyone involved. Acknowledging that risk does not excuse misconduct but it does recognize predictable consequences.
Civil disobedience has a long and honorable place in American history. But there is an important moral distinction between refusing to comply with an unjust law and physically interfering with an active enforcement action where force is already authorized and present. The former clarifies injustice by accepting personal cost. The latter redirects risk outward, often onto bystanders, officers or families who did not consent to be part of a confrontation. That distinction matters.
My argument is simple: Instead of demonizing the principles that keep the United States functional — law, order and human rights — we should celebrate them by acting them out, through actions that are genuinely best for our neighbors, co-workers and communities, under the larger moral obligation of preserving a liberal democracy. Vigilante interference does not help. Resisting arrest doesn’t help. Neither do overly aggressive enforcement tactics that fuel the outrage that gives rise to that interference.
As Americans, we should respect the law even when we disagree with it. The Good Book tells us to respect our elders; it does not tell us to agree with them. Respect does not mean silence, nor does it mean blind obedience. It means choosing responses that reduce harm rather than amplify it. We can use the disagreement with policy to fuel our desire to build a better polity, legally — and without having to endure a civil war!
For non-Americans, voluntary self-deportation, while difficult and often coerced by circumstance, has already accounted for almost four times more departures than forced removals. It remains a lawful path that avoids violent confrontation and preserves the possibility of lawful return.
There is an opportunity here — an off-ramp. Border Patrol chief Gregory Bovino can change strategy. That change must be paired with a media environment that stops condoning or celebrating civilians who interfere
with lawful processes, and instead encourages serious engagement with reform through democratic means. And personally within each of us, we mustn’t let the rage of paid influencers determine our risk tolerance or how we treat one another.
Renee Good — a mother of three, may her memory be eternal — lost her life during a lawful but deeply fraught enforcement operation. Death is never an acceptable outcome of protest or policing. The overwhelming responsibility for lethal force rests with the state. At the same time, moral seriousness requires acknowledging that inserting oneself into volatile enforcement actions carries risks that are not just symbolic in your feed. Recognizing that fact is not victim blaming; it is at least half-way to preventing future tragedy.
My most sincere sympathy goes out to the Good children and to ICE agent Jonathan Ross, whose lives
have been permanently altered.
“If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” — James Madison (Federalist Paper No. 51).
Nick David is a lifelong Ashland resident, a member of the city’s Transportation Advisory Committee and a business owner.
