The Wrong Thing for the Right Reason Is Still Wrong

Chicago’s Immigration Standoff

When Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order instructing city police not to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, he framed it as an act of protection. The order—called the Protecting Chicago Initiative—was pitched as a defense of civil liberties, a barrier against federal overreach, and a safeguard for immigrant communities.

At first glance, the move looks like a principled stand. The city wants to shield vulnerable residents from being swept into mass enforcement campaigns. But peel back the layers, and an unavoidable truth emerges: the wrong thing done for the right reason is still wrong.

Federal vs. Local: The Power Struggle

Immigration is a federal matter, clearly outlined in the Constitution. Border security, enforcement, and naturalization are not delegated to local jurisdictions. When a city openly declares that its police will not cooperate with federal officers, it sparks a dangerous tug-of-war over authority.

This isn’t just a policy disagreement—it’s a constitutional clash. Federal officers are empowered by law to act. Obstructing them, or ordering city employees to resist cooperation, risks crossing into illegality. Some argue that it even flirts with treason, since defying lawful federal enforcement is more than civil disobedience—it is institutionalized resistance.

Here’s the ethical snag: noble motives don’t absolve unlawful acts. A mayor can claim to be protecting rights, but if the mechanism chosen undermines the framework of the republic, the “protection” comes at the cost of the very order that makes rights enforceable in the first place.

Citizens as the Collateral

Whenever local and federal authorities clash, ordinary citizens suffer first. Streets fill with uncertainty. Families don’t know which officers they can trust, or whose authority will prevail. If federal agents act unilaterally and city police refuse to assist—or worse, obstruct—the chaos trickles down to neighborhoods already strained by crime, poverty, and mistrust.

The human toll extends beyond undocumented residents. Legal immigrants and U.S. citizens alike face the ripple effects: delayed services, strained police resources, and heightened tension in communities. Citizens who should be protected by government instead become collateral in a power struggle.

Ethics Isn’t Just About Intent

It’s tempting to excuse the mayor’s move as morally defensible because it’s aimed at protecting people. But ethics isn’t just about motive; it’s also about method. Choosing the “wrong” method for a “right” reason compromises both.

Think of it this way: if someone breaks into a pharmacy to steal medicine for a sick child, the compassion behind the act doesn’t erase the theft. In fact, it teaches a troubling lesson—that the law is optional when the cause feels urgent enough. That’s not ethics; that’s justification.

Chicago’s leaders may genuinely care about protecting vulnerable populations. But protecting them through defiance of lawful authority erodes the very framework of law and order. The wrong thing for the right reason still plants the wrong seed—and wrong seeds don’t yield good harvests.

Practical Fallout

Beyond the legal and moral dimensions, there’s the practical fallout to consider:

• Enforcement efficiency collapses. Federal officers may carry out raids or checkpoints anyway, but without local coordination, operations are clumsier and more prone to error.

• Public trust weakens. Citizens stop knowing who to trust—federal agents or local police—especially when orders and uniforms conflict.

• Precedent is set. If Chicago can openly defy federal immigration enforcement, what stops another city from refusing to enforce federal tax laws, or gun laws, or civil rights protections? The line, once crossed, invites chaos.

Even those sympathetic to the mayor’s intent have to wrestle with this: once local governments decide which federal laws they’ll cooperate with, the foundation of national unity begins to crack.

The Bottom Line

Chicago’s executive order is built on a compassionate impulse—to protect immigrants from what the mayor sees as political theater in Washington. But noble intent does not sanctify flawed action. The law is clear: immigration is a federal responsibility, and resistance to lawful federal enforcement carries consequences.

The ethical principle here is timeless: the wrong thing done for the right reason is still the wrong thing. In trying to safeguard people today, leaders risk undermining the stability that protects everyone tomorrow.