Good Ideas, Bad intentions

 

I often wonder why a free country like the United States tolerates criminal gangs and widespread lawlessness in its cities. Most people know there are neighborhoods you avoid after dark as well as  subway lines you wouldn’t ride alone.  Everyone talks about it, but it never seems to get fixed.  

Local police appear to be kept busy arresting individual offenders, but little seems to be done to dismantle the larger networks behind drug trafficking, racketeering, and organized crime. Popular media sometimes point to a lack of political will or corruption within law enforcement as part of the problem.

As a teenager I read Science Fiction stories that imagined “perfect” societies - where a watchful state had virtually eliminated crime. Citizens were tracked, deviant behavior suppressed, and dissent purged. The populace became little more than obeisant robots.  

Over time I came to believe such a society could not — and should not — exist here because the price of that kind of order is the erosion of individual freedom and thought.  So, I accept the reality of an imperfect world; but I cannot accept the injustice that I see in the current kakistocracy.  

Since WW2 we have stationed military troops in (peaceful) allied countries like Japan and Germany, yet at home, we tolerate neighborhoods where the residents live in constant fear. If the government has the resources to keep a presence abroad, why not use the power of the military to eliminate criminal behavior locally?

Most people, across the political spectrum, agree that immigrants who commit crimes should be deported. But there lies the dilemma: without due process, who is a criminal ? There’s an important difference between the suspected, the accused, and the convicted. Under the rule of law, everyone — citizen or not — has the right to a day in court. That commitment to due process is one of the things that defines us as Americans.

Some argue that illegal entry is itself a crime and that undocumented immigrants should be removed immediately, without hearings. They even applaud aggressive enforcement tactics — masked officers rounding up people who “look foreign” and loading them into vans. I understand the appeal of decisive action, but this approach conflicts with legal principles and established protections.

I find it hypocritical for me to criticize those (like President Trump and his ilk) who advocate deploying National Guard troops to deal with crime, because part of me has always accepted the idea of using armed forces to eliminate dangerous criminals when local authorities cannot (or will not) act to fix things.. The challenge is balancing effective enforcement with human rights and legal protections.   

In the end, I must admit that I agree with Trump that something needs to be done to quell the lawlessness in big cities.  My beef is actually that instead of working with local authorities to coordinate solutions, he imposes his uninformed will, oblivious to consequences.  

Worse, his actions appear punitive since he chooses to target Democratic (Blue) states, while ignoring the actual requests from Republican Governors in places where the crime rates are worse than the blue cities he has targeted.  

Note: Chatgpt was used to factcheck and edit this text