“Law and order” politics often undermines the rule of law

Civil rights advocates need not cede ground in defining “the law.”

It looks as if an eon ago by the requirements of the 24-hour news cycle that President Donald Trump tweeted some thing remarkably revealing concerning how he defines “law and order.” On June 24, Trump outlined a call for for hardline action against people “who invade our country” — though with little indication of what elegance of immigrants or asylum seekers he is probably referring to. “Whilst somebody comes in,” Trump argued, “we have to immediately, with no Judges or court cases, bring them again from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and law and Order.”

The irony scarcely bears mention: the claim that law and order calls for dispensing with the legal device. The claim is particularly striking from the self-defined “law and order” president. diverse commentators referred to that simply removing “Judges” and “court cases” would violate due process, as assured via america constitution’s Fourteenth amendment, repeatedly affirmed through the supreme court, and defined under federal law.

However what’s truly taking place here? is this logical inconsistency only a Trumpian quirk?

It seems that Trump’s curious use of the term “law and order” is some distance from unique. “law and order politics” frequently involves government officials breaking the law. Examples abound: From unconstitutional racial profiling under Joe Arpaio in his time as an Arizona sheriff; to extrajudicial executions of suspected drug abusers under President Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines; to assassination of pro-democracy activists following dictator Augusto Pinochet’s coup in Chile. When individual rights protections stand in the manner of policy goals, advocates of “law and order” politics are often more than willing to ignore laws, constitutions, or even the democratic order.