Beyond Extremes

Guest Opinion by Alicia Haggermaker

America is once again trapped in a false choice — one that feels familiar, exhausting, and dangerous.

On one side, we are told that the only way to restore order is through fear: masked agents, intimidation, escalation, and an ever-lower tolerance for human error. On the other, we are told that compassion means abandoning boundaries altogether — that enforcement itself is cruelty, and that systems should absorb unlimited strain without consequence.

Both extremes are wrong — and both are actively harming us.

Recent events have forced this tension into the open. A U.S. citizen was shot and killed by an ICE agent during an enforcement operation. Investigations are ongoing, facts are disputed, and legal accountability has yet to be determined. But while officials debate procedures and justifications, something else has already happened — something undeniable.

People are traumatized.

At a recent Huntsville City Council meeting, community members spoke openly about fear, distress, and the psychological toll of immigration enforcement tactics. This wasn’t abstract ideology. It was lived experience. Parents afraid. Neighbors shaken. Trust eroded.

That alone should give us pause.

It is reasonable to believe that U.S. border policy has been mismanaged. It is also reasonable to believe that most people crossing the border are not coming with violent or malicious intent. And it is equally reasonable to acknowledge that some absolutely are — as there are bad actors in every population, every crowd, every system.

Our policies have not just failed to manage this reality; in some cases, they have actively supported it. Pretending otherwise is not compassion — it is denial.

These ideas are not in conflict, despite how loudly we are told they must be. Recognizing human dignity does not require ignoring risk. Acknowledging risk does not require dehumanization.

What is unreasonable is the insistence that we must choose between two moral failures.

Fear does not create order. It creates trauma — and trauma destabilizes communities far more effectively than any policy failure ever could. History is unambiguous on this point. Terrorizing people into compliance does not produce safety; it produces resentment, silence, and eventual backlash.

At the same time, pretending that borders, systems, and capacity don’t matter is not compassion — it is negligence. Communities cannot thrive when pressure is unmanaged, resources are strained, and vulnerable populations are pitted against one another. That approach fuels the very extremism it claims to oppose.

This false binary — cruelty or chaos — is the same one we’re offered every election cycle: choose the lesser of two evils and pretend one will save you. It never does. It only lowers the bar further.

Which brings us to the question many people are uncomfortable asking out loud:

• If Jesus were here today, what would he do?
• Would he cheer a woman’s death and say she “had it coming”?
• Would he applaud trauma as an acceptable byproduct of authority?
• Would he take the bait to divide people into camps and call that justice?
• Or would he mourn the loss of life, challenge the abuse of power, and refuse to reduce human beings to symbols in someone else’s argument?

Jesus consistently confronted unjust systems — not by celebrating suffering, but by insisting on human dignity. He didn’t abolish boundaries, but he rejected cruelty. He didn’t deny accountability, but he refused dehumanization. He didn’t rule through fear, and he didn’t confuse punishment with righteousness.

You don’t have to be religious to understand the point.

A society that cheers death as proof of strength has already lost its moral footing. A government that relies on terror to maintain order has failed at governance. And a public discourse that cannot imagine a middle ground is not mature — it is manipulated.

We can do better.

A humane, functional approach to immigration requires both structure and compassion. Clear processes without intimidation. Enforcement without escalation. Accountability without celebration of harm. Support for newcomers without abandoning the people already here.

If your solution requires fear, death, or trauma to “work,” it isn’t a solution. It’s just another failure — one we’ll all pay for later.

The question isn’t whether we enforce laws.

The question is who we become while doing it.

Alicia Boothe Haggermaker is a lifelong resident of Huntsville, Alabama, and a dedicated advocate for health freedom. For more than a decade, she has worked to educate the public and policymakers on issues of medical choice and public transparency. In January 2020, she organized a delegation of physicians and health freedom advocates to Montgomery, contributing to the initial draft of legislation that became SB267.

Opinions do not reflect the views and opinions of ALPolitics.com. ALPolitics.com makes no claims nor assumes any responsibility for the information and opinions expressed above.