When Chicago journalism stops defending the rule of law, it starts defending the breakdown of civilization itself
There was a time when newspapers at least pretended to support law and order. They might disagree with a policy. They might criticize elected officials. But there was still an understanding that civilization depends on respect for the law, respect for legitimate authority, and respect for the idea that disputes in a democratic society are resolved through legislation rather than mob pressure and selective enforcement.
That understanding has largely vanished from large segments of the Chicago media.
Today, too much of the local press has transformed itself from watchdog journalism into advocacy journalism for lawbreakers. The latest example comes from the Chicago Tribune’s June 2 feature lamenting Chicago police officers are actually enforcing city street-vending laws.
Think about how absurd that is for a moment. Police are now being criticized for enforcing laws that were duly enacted by elected officials. Not for brutality. Not for corruption. Not for misconduct. Simply for enforcing the law.
According to the Tribune, street vendors are now “fearful and struggling” because police officers are confiscating carts, issuing tickets, and making arrests for unlicensed street vending in prohibited areas such as Michigan Avenue and portions of the parks system.
Well, yes. That is generally what happens when laws are enforced.
The Tribune frames the story emotionally, centering on asylum seekers and illegal immigrants selling fruit, tamales, hot dogs, and other items without licenses or permits. The implication is that because these individuals are poor, sympathetic, or trying to survive, the law itself should effectively cease to exist.
But that is precisely the dangerous slippery slope Chicago has been sliding down for years.
First, the media normalized illegal immigration itself. We were told entering the country illegally was merely a civil matter, or an act of desperation, or somehow morally justified. Then the media began attacking anyone who actually attempted to enforce immigration law. ICE became demonized. Deportations became “raids.” Sanctuary policies became sacred doctrine.
Then came the next stage: Defending not merely illegal entry into the country, but the illegal activities conducted afterward.
Now we are told unlicensed street vending should essentially be tolerated because some of the vendors are migrants or asylum seekers. The Tribune openly quotes activists arguing enforcement itself is the problem, not the underlying violations.
And one alderman even suggested if the city prevents illegal vending, people may “find other ways” to make money — an argument that sounds disturbingly close to outright extortion.
Really? This is the standard now?
If someone breaks one law to enter the country, then breaks another law to conduct business illegally, are we simply supposed to suspend enforcement indefinitely because enforcing the law might create “hardship”?
Where exactly does this end?
Because we know with absolute certainty some individuals who are in the country illegally also engage in far more serious criminal conduct. Drug dealing. Theft. Fraud. Robbery. Extortion. Gang activity. Human trafficking. That is simply a fact.
So what happens when the same moral logic gets applied there?
Do we eventually hear arguments drug dealers are merely “trying to survive”? That thieves are “feeding their families”? That law enforcement is “criminalizing poverty”? In many cases, we already hear those arguments.
Once a society begins abandoning the principle that laws should be enforced equally, the entire structure of civilized order begins to rot from the inside.
Chicago should understand this better than almost any city in America.
We already lived through a version of this during Prohibition in the 1920s and 1930s. Large portions of society decided the law was illegitimate. Enforcement became selective and politicized. Corruption flourished. Organized crime exploded. Violence escalated. Public confidence in institutions collapsed.
The lesson of that era was not law enforcement itself was the problem. The lesson was when respect for the law collapses, society becomes increasingly ungovernable.
And make no mistake: Street vending laws exist for legitimate reasons.
Restaurants and licensed businesses must comply with health inspections, taxes, sanitation requirements, labor rules, insurance regulations, and permitting costs. Why should illegal vendors operating without those burdens receive a competitive advantage over people who follow the rules?
If someone buys food from an unlicensed cart and gets sick, who is accountable? Where are the inspections? Where are the safeguards? Where is the fairness to legal business owners who invested time and money to comply with city regulations?
The same principle applies to immigration itself. Millions of people around the world obey the rules, apply legally, wait years, spend money, and navigate a difficult system. Why should those who circumvent the process simply be allowed to ignore the law once they arrive?
The proper response to disagreement with a law is not selective nullification. It is legislation.
If Chicago politicians believe street vending laws should be relaxed, then change the law through the City Council. If Congress believes immigration laws should be changed, then change federal law through Congress.
That is how constitutional democracies function.
But that is not what many politicians and media outlets are doing today. Instead, they are openly encouraging resistance to enforcement itself. We see it in immigration protests. We see it in the obstruction of federal agents. We see it in the rhetoric surrounding ICE operations. And now we see it in the campaign to portray routine enforcement of vending laws as somehow immoral or oppressive.
The media increasingly treats law enforcement officers as villains merely for doing their jobs.
That is extraordinarily dangerous.
Because once people lose faith that laws will actually be enforced fairly and consistently, two things happen simultaneously: criminals become emboldened, and law-abiding citizens become cynical. That combination is toxic to any functioning society.
Chicago already suffers from enough disorder, enough violence, enough chaos, enough contempt for authority. The last thing this city needs is a media establishment actively undermining the very concept of law enforcement itself.
Compassion matters. Humanity matters. But civilization also matters.
And civilization cannot survive if every law becomes optional whenever activists or journalists decide that enforcement feels emotionally uncomfortable.
