Ruben Navarrette Jr.’s commentary of May 21 spent four paragraphs talking about prosecuting the illegal alien who slammed into the Lake family’s car killing two people. His odd conclusion was that prosecuting the perpetrator somehow helped the family.
He suggests the immorality of presuming illegals are more likely to commit crimes than legal immigrants, which is correct, but he left out government responsibility. Is a government (federal, state or local) that allows illegals to come into and remain in their jurisdiction without due diligence responsible for the results, both the good and the bad, of their inaction?
When Mr. Navarette champions illegals, does he advocate and take responsibility for the lack of enforcement that allowed those illegals to come here in the first place? Can VOICE, Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement be seen as the federal government taking moral responsibility for the consequences of its failure to control illegal immigration, as the law requires?
Has California’s lax/non enforcement, sanctuary cities, etc., contributed to or diminished the problem? Maybe the immorality here is that California does not take more responsibility for harm the bad 2 percent inflict on its citizens while claiming credit for the good 98 percent.
Bob Swan, Clovis