The Dangerous Illusion of Selective Law Enforcement

I lived in Korea legally for sixteen-plus years. If I had let my visa lapse, I would have been detained and deported. Anyone helping me evade authorities would have faced legal penalties, and rightly so—because I would have broken the law, and they would have actively assisted in that violation. That is the basic, self-evident logic of any nation enforcing its immigration policies.

Yet, in the U.S., we’ve reached a bizarre inversion of that logic. Here, immigration laws exist on paper, but in practice, entire cities and states openly defy them. The concept of sanctuary cities—jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement—turns the rule of law into a political tool rather than a societal foundation. If immigration laws are unjust, they should be debated and reformed through legislative means, not selectively ignored at the whim of local governments. Otherwise, what is the limiting principle? If a city can refuse to enforce immigration laws, why not tax laws? Why not drug laws? The precedent of selective enforcement is a slippery slope that erodes the very notion of a nation governed by laws rather than feelings or political expediency. I’ve been to places governed that way. They are not places one wants to live.

Even more puzzling is the way Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is villainized for merely doing its job. If one enters this country illegally, isn’t it a straightforward consequence that they could be arrested and deported? That is not cruelty; it is the basic function of a nation protecting its borders. Every country in the world enforces its immigration policies, including those with far stricter consequences than the U.S. Yet, somehow, in the American political landscape, enforcing immigration laws is framed as an ethical failure rather than a legal necessity.

I understand that not everyone has the same opportunities in life, and I don’t discount that many illegal immigrants come from desperate situations. But does hardship, however real, justify breaking the law? If laws can be disregarded when circumstances are tough, then law itself ceases to be meaningful. The moment we allow emotion to override legality, we are no longer a nation of laws—we are a nation of exceptions, dictated by whoever has the loudest voice or the most sympathetic story.

Defenders of lax immigration policies frequently shift their reasoning when challenged. The arguments are rarely consistent, and more often than not, they rely on selective outrage, emotional appeals, and rhetorical sleight of hand.

A common tactic is to deny outright that their policies lead to open borders while simultaneously opposing every measure that would enforce immigration laws. The reality is that some progressive factions do advocate for policies that weaken border control and make it functionally impossible to enforce immigration laws. Pretending otherwise is intellectual dishonesty.

Some argue that the U.S. is different from Korea because it relies on illegal immigration. This argument is both misleading and morally bankrupt. It suggests that the economy of a first-world nation is reliant on an exploited underclass with no legal protections. If industries depend on illegal labor, the problem is with policy, not enforcement. Instead of tolerating illegal labor, industries could expand guest worker programs like H-2A and H-2B, adjust market wages to attract legal workers, and invest in automation and innovation. Even more troubling, this argument carries racial undertones. It assumes certain ethnic groups are only fit for low-wage labor and that native-born citizens or legal immigrants will not take those jobs if given fair wages and protections.

Sanctuary cities are often defended as a means of building trust, but the reality is that sanctuary policies do not just foster trust; they actively obstruct federal immigration enforcement. No other area of law enforcement allows local jurisdictions to refuse cooperation with federal authorities simply because they disagree with the law. If someone has an active warrant for their arrest, should a city be allowed to ignore it? If sanctuary policies were limited to protecting victims and witnesses, that would be one thing. But in practice, they shield individuals from federal law enforcement, even when those individuals have outstanding deportation orders.

ICE is frequently villainized because it engages in abuses. Like any law enforcement agency, ICE is not beyond scrutiny. However, broad vilification is a distraction from real policy discussions. If abuses occur, they should be addressed—but the necessity of border enforcement itself should not be undermined. The conflation of ICE with the Border Patrol further muddies the debate. One enforces immigration within the country, the other protects the border. Both exist to uphold laws passed by Congress.

Some claim that selective enforcement is necessary because immigration laws are outdated. The most dangerous argument in this debate is the normalization of selective enforcement. If a city can refuse to enforce immigration laws, why not tax laws? Drug laws? Property laws? A nation governed by selective enforcement is no longer a nation of laws—it is a nation ruled by political convenience and mob sentiment. If laws are unjust, they should be changed through legislative reform, not ignored at will.

Strict enforcement leads to authoritarianism, they say. This is an appeal to emotion, a slippery slope fallacy, and an ad hominem attack all in one. Immigration enforcement is not an act of cruelty—it is a standard function of governance. Enforcing immigration law does not inevitably lead to human rights abuses. Opposing illegal immigration does not mean endorsing authoritarianism.

Immigration enforcement is not about race or culture—it is about law, sovereignty, and national cohesion. The U.S. cannot survive as a functional nation if laws are enforced selectively. If immigration laws are unjust, let them be changed through debate and legislation. But to ignore them outright is not progress—it is a step toward chaos.