Opinions, Policy, and Law

By Michael J. Badagliacco, “MJB”

I have learned through my own life that a wide gap often separates what we want government to do and what it legally can or must do. As a second-generation Sicilian American, I grew up hearing stories of my grandfather arriving as a child on a boat from Sicily. He entered lawfully, worked hard, and built a life within the rules. That experience shapes my views today. I love my family’s story, yet I also recognize the difference between heartfelt desires and binding law.

A Constitutional Republic, Not a Democracy

We live in a Constitutional Republic. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees every state “a Republican Form of Government.” Citizens elect representatives who then craft policy and pass laws for the areas they serve. Those laws stand as long as they do not conflict with higher authority. I often remind myself of this structure when I feel frustrated with government. My personal wish for faster or stricter action must still respect this framework.  The difference is real and not nuanced.

The Supremacy Clause

Federal law prevails when it conflicts with state law. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, declares the Constitution and federal laws “the supreme Law of the Land.” Judges in every state are bound by it. Growing up in a household that respected rules, I learned early that higher authority wins. State policies cannot override federal statutes.

Opinions Versus the Law

When I write articles, my opinions come through clearly. I am an opinionated man, and that is my right under the First Amendment. Readers may agree or disagree; that freedom defines America. However, when I cite law, I step away from personal preference. The law is the law. I may disagree with parts of it, but I must follow it or face consequences. This principle guided my own family. My daughter-in-law arrived from Brazil on a student visa and is now completing the citizenship process. We celebrate her lawful journey because it honors the rules that built our nation.

Immigration Law: A Personal and Legal Perspective

Federal immigration statutes illustrate the distinction between policy preferences and enforceable law. 8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes improper entry by an alien a federal offense. First offenses carry up to six months in jail; subsequent offenses carry up to two years. Civil penalties apply in addition. 8 U.S.C. § 1324 prohibits harboring, shielding, or assisting aliens who are present in violation of law, with penalties reaching ten years in prison.

I am proudly pro-immigrant and pro-legal immigration, not anti-immigrant. My grandfather’s lawful arrival and my daughter-in-law’s current path prove the system works when followed. What I oppose is lawbreaking. America is a nation of immigrants, of that there is no denial or refuting.  But I also believe that those who immigrate here should, as my grandfather did, must assimilate into the American culture.  This does not require abandoning your heritage.  To the contrary…. I believe that celebrating one’s heritage is essential to your identity.  But we also must embrace the American culture.  If you are not going to embrace America, why are you here?  Is it simply to siphon off the wealth of the country?  Or are you here to enhance the culture we have? I choose the later.  I personally love America, that is why I served our country in the USAF.   

Sanctuary Policies and the Rule of Law

Colorado’s “sanctuary” policies create tension with federal law. The concept of sanctuary began in churches, not government. The Constitution contains no phrase mandating “separation of church and state” in the way often claimed; the First Amendment simply prevents Congress from establishing religion or prohibiting its free exercise. Policies that obstruct federal enforcement under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324 and 1325 conflict with the Supremacy Clause and rest on shaky legal ground.

If we believe current immigration law is bad policy, the remedy is clear, petition our government to change the law. We vote for representatives who will change the statutes. For constitutional issues, Article V provides the amendment process when sufficient states agree. Wishing for different outcomes does not rewrite the law.

I support secure borders and lawful immigration as my family lived that path, and it is the right and legal thing to do. Respecting the distinction between opinion and law strengthens our Republic. As citizens, we must follow valid statutes today while working lawfully to improve them tomorrow.  One thing remains, the Constitution, Federal Law Supremacy, not contradicting state law, not opinion.