|Artist's rendition as screengrabbed from this concept PDF hosted on the League City website.|
|Screengrabbed from this NPR piece which was published just last month.|
It's not a rhetorical question, and the reason why I ask is as follows. After I published "League City versus the United States of America", I got strongly-opinionated and terse feedback through a diversity of channels alleging that League City's pursuit of assembled day laborers had nothing to do with targeting a particular racial or ethnic group, and everything to do with mounting frustration over the federal government's general lack of immigration enforcement. It was yet another case of a local government making a statement by effectively taking matters into their own hands - nothing more.
OK, let's parse that interpretation. If League City is authentically committed to the upholding of immigration laws to the extreme of being sued for its self-assigned involvement with same, then it follows that we should expect to see that noble principle manifesting across the board, right? If the whole thing really was about opposing illegal immigration, League City should be doubly motivated to oppose it within their own house, especially within their own police station, given that it was the police who were tasked with this alleged de facto enforcement activity. Otherwise, wouldn't the whole situation simply amount to the ultimate in hypocrisy?
I'm not implying that the new police station is being built using illegal labor somewhere in the contracting hierarchy. I'm asking the question because I genuinely don't know the answer, but I sure would like to. What awesome potential this has for some fearless investigative journalism.
|Public Safety Building, construction in progress, view looking southeast from West Walker Street.|