A Valley Viewpoint Narrative
By Ed Kowalski
A political candidate can tell you a great deal about her priorities in a single sentence.
In the aftermath of the Bronx ICE shooting, congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier reportedly said that Oscar Belgal’s criminal record “doesn’t matter.” Belgal was shot during an attempted arrest. He was in a car with his five-year-old son, and the circumstances of the shooting deserve a full, impartial investigation. But the question of whether the shooting was justified is separate from whether a serious criminal record matters to public safety and immigration enforcement. Of course it does.
That distinction should not be difficult. We can demand answers about how federal agents conducted an operation while also acknowledging that a record of serious offenses matters when authorities decide whom to arrest and whether someone should remain in the country. Accountability for law enforcement and accountability for people accused or convicted of crimes are not competing principles.
I’ve spent time working with unaccompanied minors, and I know immigration debates involve real people, families and difficult circumstances. Compassion matters. So does the safety of the neighbors who live beside someone accused of terrorizing them. The New York Post reported that Belgal had a prior armed-robbery conviction, drug-related charges and neighbors who described being frightened by him. Those reports should be examined carefully, and allegations should not be casually treated as proven facts. But a candidate who says a criminal record “doesn’t matter” is telling the public that these details carry no weight in her judgment.
The public also deserves a clear account of the shooting itself. Reuters reported that federal officials said Belgal’s vehicle threatened officers, while the account of what happened remained contested. That is exactly why investigators should establish the facts before politicians declare the officers guilty or the shooting justified.
But uncertainty about the shooting does not erase the larger policy question. When government officials resist cooperation over people with serious criminal histories, they owe the public an honest explanation of the risks and consequences. “Sanctuary” cannot become a magic word that ends the debate. And concern for an immigrant’s rights cannot mean indifference to the people who may have been harmed or frightened by his alleged conduct.
The words “our neighbor” can express a generous belief that every person deserves dignity. They can also be used to soften the reality that neighbors have a right to feel safe in their own community. A five-year-old child in the back seat deserves compassion. So do the residents who say they feared the man authorities were trying to arrest. The principle should be simple: protect everyone, investigate the use of force, and take serious criminal conduct seriously.
If a candidate wants public office, she should be able to hold all of those ideas at once. When she says the record “doesn’t matter,” voters are entitled to ask whose safety she believes should matter most.
