Fear Is Not Defiance

Guest Opinion by Keith O. Williams

Public policy does not operate in isolation. Laws, rhetoric, and enforcement practices shape not only behavior but also mental and emotional well-being. As a certified counselor practitioner and peer support specialist — and as an independent candidate for Alabama State House District 55 — I believe it is necessary to address Alabama’s current immigration debate through a lens that is often ignored: basic psychology.

Recent discussions surrounding immigration enforcement, including HB13, have generated widespread fear and anxiety within communities. Much of the public conversation has been reduced to blunt directives: “Just comply,” “Come here legally,” “Back law enforcement without question,” or “If you’re afraid, you must be hiding something.” These statements overlook how human beings actually respond to perceived threats.

In Psychology 101, students learn that fear is not a political belief — it is a biological response. When individuals perceive danger, the brain activates the fight, flight, or freeze response before rational thought occurs. This process is involuntary. People do not choose fear; their nervous system initiates it automatically as a survival mechanism.

This matters because policy decisions and enforcement language can heighten that sense of threat. When fear is present, individuals may withdraw from public spaces, avoid interaction, or remain silent. These behaviors are often misinterpreted as defiance or guilt, when in reality they are predictable psychological reactions. Law enforcement and politicians are not trained to handle these responses. It often leads to escalation, harm, or death. Responses of that kind should only be handled by a trained mental health professional.

Freud’s framework — still taught in introductory psychology — helps explain this dynamic. The id responds instinctively to danger. The ego attempts to reason and assess risk. The superego, shaped by authority and social norms, pressures individuals to comply, often at the expense of their emotional well-being. When enforcement is framed as absolute and unforgiving, these internal systems collide, producing anxiety, especially among children and vulnerable populations.

When a child expresses fear about leaving home, that response should not be dismissed or politicized. It reflects a nervous system responding to uncertainty and perceived threat. Fear-based compliance may produce short-term obedience, but it carries long-term costs: eroded trust, increased anxiety, and weakened relationships between communities and institutions.

Questioning enforcement practices is not the same as opposing law enforcement. Accountability, transparency, and constitutional restraint strengthen public institutions. They build trust. A society that treats fear as guilt and silence as compliance risks normalizing emotional harm as a tool of governance.

Psychology also teaches a foundational principle: human beings seek to avoid pain and move toward safety. Emotional pain — fear, humiliation, uncertainty — is no different. When policies or public discourse amplify that pain, people disengage not out of hostility, but out of self-preservation.

If legislation is constitutional, it should withstand scrutiny without relying on fear to justify itself. If enforcement practices are just, they should not require unquestioned obedience to maintain legitimacy.

Lawmakers have a responsibility to consider not only the legal implications of policy, but the psychological and social impact as well. Public safety is not sustained through fear alone. It is built through trust, understanding, and respect for the human condition.

Beyond the psychological impact, there are legitimate constitutional concerns raised by HB13 that deserve careful attention.

Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, and when state laws blur that boundary, it risks placing local officials, law enforcement, and residents into legally uncertain territory. Broad enforcement authority without clear limits raises questions about due process, equal protection, and whether individuals may be stopped, questioned, or detained based on suspicion rather than conduct. When laws are perceived as encouraging profiling or unchecked discretion, they can undermine constitutional safeguards that exist to protect everyone — citizens and non-citizens alike. A law’s legitimacy is not measured by how forcefully it is enforced, but by whether it respects constitutional boundaries while maintaining public trust.

Keith O. Williams is an Independent candidate for Alabama State House of Representatives in District 55, a Certified Counselor Practitioner & Peer Support Specialist.

Williams will face incumbent Travis Hendrix in Alabama House District 55 in the General Election on November 3, 2026. For more about his campaign, visit his Facebook page.

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.

Editor’s note: Alabama House Bill 13 (HB13), titled the Laken Riley Act, outlines new State procedures for cooperating with federal immigration enforcement and managing non-citizens detained in local custody. The bill would allow State and local law enforcement agencies to enter into memoranda of understanding or agreement with federal bodies such as the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. These agreements would authorize local officers to assist with enforcing federal immigration and customs law.

Under the bill’s provisions, “employees of any state or local law enforcement agency… shall send, receive, and maintain information relating to the immigration status of any individual as reasonably needed for public safety purposes.” It would permit State and local officers to transport an illegal alien to federal custody and, where authorized by federal law, arrest an individual based on their immigration status or for violations of federal immigration law.

The bill also sets out standardized procedures for intake, booking, and status verification of foreign nationals in County and municipal jails. County and municipal jails would be required to honor federal immigration detainer requests in specified circumstances and to provide quarterly reports on foreign nationals in custody.

HB 13 was introduced in the Alabama House on January 13, 2026, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee, where it awaits action. It is sponsored by Reps. Yarbrough, Mooney, Butler, Whorton, Pettus, Underwood, Colvin, Carns, Treadaway, Kiel, Stringer, Gidley, Fidler, DuBose and Bolton.

The full text of HB13 as filed may be found HERE.