The online website for the "My Statesman" newspaper has an editorial article written by Glenn W. Smith about the moral compass on the idea of "sanctuary cities." Smith is a longtime political journalist for the Texas Newspaper, and a Democratic consultant. His article covers the controversial term "sanctuary cities" and its affect on Texans. "Sanctuary cities" is apparently a term used to describe cities where the local law enforcement doesn't go out of their way to stop and profile citizens to check if they are legally in the country. This has been a hot topic since many politicians have used this term as well as immigration reform and plans as a way to exploit a problem for their political gain. This has been seen in many republican and conservative campaigns, and is even greater known in presidential hopeful Donald Trumps campaign. Donald Trump declares he will build a border wall and that cracking down on immigration laws is a must. Texas formally does not have any "sanctuary cities" since the legislature agrees to follow the guidelines put in place by the federal government when it comes to immigration policy. However, most law enforcements do not go out of their way to pull over random citizens and ask for proof of citizenship. Yet.
My only problem with Smith's article is completely in his writing. It is hard for me to critique the writing of a man who has had what I would assume years of critical writing on political topics. But I just really hate his style of writing. It isn't very attractive to the eye or brain the way he jumps from one point to another almost mid description. I found myself having to re-read whole paragraphs that I just finished because I couldn't at first understand what he was trying to convey. Its like reading the words of someone who is high on caffeine. It seems all over the place to me.
He then goes on to make this wonderful argument that the idea of 'sanctuary cities' in this country is ridiculous since it shouldn't be a privilege to not be harassed and profiled for your immigration status. As if it should be a blessing to be in a city where you don't get pulled over just because you look a certain race, and asked every day to prove your citizenship. He totally has my vote on that topic. This thinking that local law enforcement should all of a sudden also become immigration police is ridiculous. As if there aren't already enough problems between law enforcement and racial profiling. This is also unconstitutional. It is the same as the racially provoked and recently banned 'Stop and Frisk" that Mayor Giuliani so passionately enforced and supported. Its unconstitutional and only adheres to a certain "look" and "type" of people.
Smith ends the article with last objections to use of law enforcement striving to be immigration police, yet says that "local law enforcement should do what is best." This rubs me the wrong way because Smith just made an entire article on how police should stick to being its communities protectors and that participating in immigration searches will lead to a riff in the community's relationship with them. He just made a stand to then end it with, well you officers do whatever you think is best? doesn't make sense. Smith seems to have a sound moral compass and I relate to his views better because I as a reader have many of the same political and liberal stands as he does. However, this article could have been written with a much more precise style, because reading his work gives me a headache.
No comments:
Post a Comment