Evangelicals & Law & Order vs. Political Theater: The Rule of Law and ICE

Chicago Police Leadership, ICE, and the Moral Necessity of the Rule of Law

In a moment marked by political volatility and rhetorical excess, the Chicago Police Superintendent issued a public statement affirming respect for and cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—recognizing ICE as a lawful federal law-enforcement agency operating under constitutional authority.

This posture stood in direct contrast to the responses of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, whose public denunciations of ICE leaned heavily on inflammatory language and moral posturing rather than legal clarity.

This distinction matters—not politically, but morally and civically.

At the center of this controversy is a foundational civic principle that transcends party and personality: the Rule of Law and ICE’s lawful authority as a federal enforcement agency. Disagreement with immigration policy does not erase statutory legitimacy, nor does political outrage nullify constitutional order. A society that undermines the Rule of Law and ICE in moments of tension does not move closer to justice—it moves closer to instability.

Chicago’s Statement: Clarity Over Capitulation

Chicago’s police leadership did not claim perfection, nor did it defend every federal enforcement decision. Instead, it affirmed a foundational truth: lawful authority must be respected if ordered liberty is to endure.

ICE is a federal agency created by statute, operating under congressional mandate and executive authority. Disagreeing with a policy does not render it illegal.

🔗 Primary Source:

• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — Mission & Authorityhttps://www.ice.gov/about-ice

  
  

When law-enforcement leaders acknowledge this publicly, they help preserve public trust and institutional coherence—especially during moments of heightened emotion.

Minnesota’s Response: Political Theater Masquerading as Moral Leadership

By contrast, Minnesota’s Governor and Minneapolis’s Mayor chose language that blurred critical distinctions between lawful enforcement and moral outrage. Historical analogies and rhetorical escalation may energize supporters, but they also undermine confidence in lawful authority and place officers—local and federal—at greater risk.

The result is confusion, not compassion. Performance, not prudence.

Political leaders are not tasked with inflaming passions; they are tasked with governing justly under the law.

Why the Rule of Law Is Non-Negotiable

The necessity of the Rule of Law is not a partisan idea. It is a civilizational one.

Dwight D. Eisenhower warned:

“The clearest way to show what the rule of law means is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law.”🔗 https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/farewell-address

John F. Kennedy stated plainly:

“Certain other societies may respect the rule of force—we respect the rule of law.”🔗 https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/historic-speeches

Long before modern democracies, Aristotle observed:

“It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”🔗 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/

These thinkers understood something many modern leaders forget: when law is replaced by sentiment, liberty becomes fragile.

A Christian Moral Lens: Law as a Gift, Not an Enemy

Scripture consistently affirms lawful authority as a means of restraining evil and preserving social order.

Romans 13:1–4 teaches that governing authorities are instituted by God to punish wrongdoing and commend good. This does not sanctify every policy decision—but it does demand restraint, respect, and clarity from those who speak publicly about the law.

Undermining lawful authority for applause today creates disorder tomorrow.

Chicago’s police leadership understood this moral reality. Minnesota’s political leadership obscured it.

Conclusion: Leadership That Anchors, Not Agitates

The difference between Chicago and Minnesota in this moment is not geography—it is judgment.

One chose sobriety over spectacle. One chose clarity over chaos. One respected the Rule of Law, while others engaged in political theater.

In moments of crisis, societies do not need louder rhetoric. They need leaders who understand that law is the servant of liberty, not its enemy.

With fear & trembling, Ricky V Kyles Sr. DEd.Min